[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...

Do they intend this as a "notes" or a "license"?

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>    - commercial products that include this document are themselves
>      compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only.

What's the point of the first statement: "are themselves compliant with
the DSFG"?  The statement doesn't make it any more true.  A license
saying "this license is DSFG-compliant" might well confuse people if the
it was *not*.  Even if it's found DSFG-compliant today, the interpretation
might change.  (Or the DSFG may change.  Err, right.)

Actually, they're saying that "commercial products that include this
document" are, not the document itself, which is even messier.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: