On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > No, you could have broken into my computer and taken it. > > Oh. Somewhat far out, I think. But nevertheless...
Then it should be harmless enough to ensure that the license can't be interpreted this way. > > But I don't think the GNU GPL needs to worry about "authorized > > recipients" versus "unauthorized recipients". > > I don't think it does. I think it is counterintuitive to read the > "directly or indirectly" as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary, > it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the rights > granted can *not* be restricted to *direct* recipients only. I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the recipient and all third parties". -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
pgpfMP4f8Ex7c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
