Phil writes: > I think the reason is that the licence for a work is not considered to be > part of the work itself (IANAL so I could be wrong)
> If I'm right, then the second sentence above is the license for the > licence (i.e. the first sentence above), and does not apply to itself. If this is true (I don't think it is, but IANAL either) the licenses might as well just stay in main. > Could someone that can get the advice of a IP lawyer check this out > please. Yes. Please. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
