On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 09:04, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Nah, this is just a reference to a particularly stupid tenet of their law. > > > > It's not "particularly stupid" to expect that, if you sign a contract, > > it should be in a language you understand. > > It's stupid that this clause has to be in the license in order to > achieve that.
I agree; it's much more applicable for contracts. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
