RE: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments

[SamBC]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
<SNIP>
>
> I can't understand this.  You agree, completely, that we don't
> know (barring
> someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means.  And then you
> argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral word is not
> contested,
> there's no problem, we should let it stay.  Am I getting this right?  I
> don't mean to build a straw man argument... it just looks as if you're
> trying to view the language as cut and dried, when it's not.
>
> I would hope some other people comment on this, because I think it's an
> important question of what subject matter is important to discuss (that's
> the only reason I haven't taken this off the list).

I believe that the term reasonable should be included, with some definition
describing it as any fee which the purchaser is willing to pay.


SamBC