Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 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". Sure. It just looked (to me; I may be dense) as if your objection was material rather than just related to a poor choice of words. -- Henning Makholm "We will discuss your youth another time."
