Jens Ritter writes: > But what strikes me more is that it allows copying, distribution, etc, > "solely for Your internal research and development," (2.1).
> And they fail to define it. What do You think? They have merely chosen a particulary verbose and awkward way to say that you don't have comply with the source distribution and notification clauses if you only use your modifications internally. Read 2.2. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
