Andrew Suffield wrote: > > The third justification refers to "the trademark notice on the license's > > website where it is not obvious if this notice is part of the license." > > > > I'm pretty sure the trademarrk notice is not part of the license. > > So were we (expecting this to be a trivial bug which would be rapidly > corrected), but when they were asked we got a non-response and it > hasn't been fixed *years later*, which made us rather less sure.
Alright, let me have a go at this one. It looks like the simplest thing to fix. If I hit a brick wall, I won't bother bringing up the other issue. What should CC do to make the note sufficiently obvious? > We did, ages ago. They didn't. That's a very, very bad sign. It means > they're either completely incompetent, or they have some reason for > keeping it broken that we don't know about. Let's avoid conspiracy theories if we can :-) Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]