Mel LaVerne makes some magical things to make me read } > >Isn't it the kind of discussion which could go onto ql-developers } > >list?
No, please ! } > > } > >While the whole issue of the sources needs to be sorted, it's in great } > >danger of being counter productive at the moment. Too many people } > >getting p***ed off with the length and impenetrable detail and legal } > >argument. The problem is that it has nothing to do with the sources, but only with the legal arguments! And its like the Lernean Hydra, when you think it's calming down, another point show up... Camel is a horse designed by a committee. I'm afraid the licence will be like that camel, and might be longer than the code itself. If such effort/pinpointing were taken when someone want to get some gazoline in his car, he would need beforehand a long agreement/disclaimers, which would regard not only the usage of the gazoline, but also who is responsible if a tyre breaks, whether or not he can call its insurance company for repair, at which speed he intends to cruise and whether it will be a sunny or rainy day, and so on.... All this may be worth for a wedding, but not for just getting some gaz in the bus! } > ... I thought I was not alone :-) } > } } You're not ! I find myself making generous use of "delete".with both "Source" } and "... Proposals." _without_ reading. Me Too, sometimes.
