Re: Multiple Licencing language

2001-10-03 Thread Simon P. Lucy
*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 02/10/2001 at 09:23 Gervase Markham wrote: And a deafening silence is the result, not even a 'its rubbish go away'. I don't believe it's necessary, because I (and, as I understand it, the other staff, and anyone else who has ever implemented a

Re: Multiple Licencing language

2001-10-03 Thread Simon P. Lucy
On 02/10/2001 at 20:41 Ben Bucksch wrote: Simon P. Lucy wrote: Yes no one will ever see it unless they do a listing output, but that isn't the point. As always the point is to unambiguously define the licence used. But to whom define, if only you will ever see it? It will end up with the

Re: Multiple Licencing language

2001-10-03 Thread Daniel Veditz
Ben Bucksch wrote: Simon P. Lucy wrote: Yes no one will ever see it unless they do a listing output, but that isn't the point. As always the point is to unambiguously define the licence used. But to whom define, if only you will ever see it? It will end up with the current scheme: