On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:32:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > * It singles out a particular package, which I believe will raise _more_ > accusations of vigilante license analysis, not less. > > * Analyzing the license with a particular package in mind may cause a > summary to only be valid for one particular package. *License*
A particular exception to this is where a copyright holder holds an interpretation that does not sanely follow from the license, in which case the summary really is tied to that instance. Pine before its relicensing is an obvious example of this. -- Glenn Maynard
