On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument
> > that licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think
> > that this revised FAQ preamble allows people to
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> > licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> > revised FAQ preamble allows people t
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely on the statements in the FAQ
> sufficiently.
I don't get it.
Tom,
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote:
> Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have
> worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify
> the intent of the DLJ.
> We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
> which is publi
"George Danchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote:
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
has been specifically re-written to clari
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 23:58 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit :
> We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
> which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
> has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship
> between the FAQ and the license itself.
Than
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote:
> All:
Hello,
thanks for your efforts.
> Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have
> worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify
> the intent of the DLJ.
>
> We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now vers
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote:
> We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
> which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
> has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship
> between the FAQ and the license itself.
Al
All:
Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have
worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify
the intent of the DLJ.
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ
has been specifically re
9 matches
Mail list logo