On 9 Nov 2002, at 2:48, dndsystems1 wrote: (...) > Yes I wanted a private corrispondnce with him without outside > influence. My question: Do you personally see any way to build in more > flexibility to the licence to accomodate the programmers that do not > like vatious parts of it.
Just what exactly did you have in mind here? If I understand this correctly, there would be some amendment to the licence for a special few? Is that realistic? Wolfgang > Asking this question in public might have restricted his answer. All > fair enough I thought. We don't need the answer now. > > 2 or 3 emails and I would have had a result to work with. I sent it at > the beginning of September and no response. In his original email to > me he says it takes him weeks to summon up courage to even think about > SMSQ/E (approx quote) so I thought he was taking a lot of time to > reply, ok I'll wait. It gets worse. I had caught him originally by > chance when he used the supnet address but I replied to him using the > same address, result is if he sends to me it will be deleted unless I > use > one of the other computers that do not filter like that. If I loose > some emails it does not matter because I only use supanet for 'the > list'. Oops! I should have given him one of the private addresses. I > found this out Thursday. > > Dennis - D&D Systems > > > ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
