On 08/ 1/10 04:07 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
I have written to FSF. So far, only an automated reply, giving the
case number:
"Your request has
been assigned an ID of [gnu.org #599076]."
We'll see...
Best,
Dima
Personally I feel whatever may be the legality of the word "should" in this
license,
I have written to FSF. So far, only an automated reply, giving the
case number:
"Your request has
been assigned an ID of [gnu.org #599076]."
We'll see...
Best,
Dima
On Jul 31, 1:54 am, Alex Ghitza wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:43:03 -0700, William Stein wrote:
> > On Friday, July 30, 2010, Dr
On 07/30/10 04:06 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Jul 29, 5:16 pm, William Stein wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
I guess it boils down to whether "should" means "must" here, or not.
Are there any means to decide, any precedents?
(I can also contact authors and ask whe
On Jul 29, 5:16 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2010, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > I guess it boils down to whether "should" means "must" here, or not.
> > Are there any means to decide, any precedents?
>
> > (I can also contact authors and ask whether they might soften the
> > lang
I guess it boils down to whether "should" means "must" here, or not.
Are there any means to decide, any precedents?
(I can also contact authors and ask whether they might soften the
language...)
Thanks,
Dima
On Jul 28, 9:43 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:30 AM, David Joy
