This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:25:54AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:35:28PM +0200, Wolfgang Lonien wrote: > > > > > > > > THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY > > > > SITUATION ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE OR PROPERTY. > > > > > > This is possibly problematic, depending on how you define "should". I'd > > > take it as just being a restatement of the whole "no warranty, if it breaks > > > you get to keep both pieces" thing, but it could be read as forbidding use > > > in the mentioned areas. > > > > The word 'should' has a fairly straight forward meaning in the English > > language. > > I just had a look at 'dict should' and it was a bit more complicated than > you make out. There's also the legal English alternative -- there's plenty > of words that have different interpretation in legal documents than they do > in colloquial usage. Should in legal English has much the same use and meaning as it does in the RFC's - it means roughly 'it would be good if ...' but does not mean 'we require ...'. I understand that you came to the same conclusion, but I wanted to be clear here. Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature