David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It depends on the interpretation of "should". Hopefully a lawyer-type > will respond to the post, because as far as I interpret, "should" means > optional. Strongly encouraged, but not required. I bet the author wants > to use the words "can not be" or "may not be" instead of "should", given > their difficulty with English.
Alas, courts are likely to be restrictive about copyright, and would be inclined to say that this is really a "must not be". The easiest thing to do is to get a clarification from the author.
