David Johnson wrote: > But, and this is a big but, why does every trivial variant of > an existing license need discussion? A far better approach is to > institutionalize license templates.
I agree; this surely would save everyone a lot of time and confusion. >> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc > > I definitely recall a discussion on this one. Am I mistaken? Yes, you are. :) At least, there hasn't been any discussion in this group (until the last post of Matthew C. Weigel, that is); perhaps it was discussed in private. Regards, Marc Rauw -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
