On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote: > All: Hello,
thanks for your efforts. > Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have > worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify > the intent of the DLJ. > > We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2) > which is publicly available at [5]. The preamble to the FAQ > has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship > between the FAQ and the license itself. I would suggest clarifications like "and we haven't made a blatant typographical error" to be removed from the FAQ. This sort of "insurance" would make people think twice what Sun interprets as "blatant typos..." and why it is actually put there, since the FAQ must have been reviewed by a team of responsible people. Although I appreciate your efforts improving the FAQ, it is the license itself which must be improved. License that needs a large FAQ to clarify its contents is not a good one ;-) P.S. I'm not a DD, and speak of myself. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
