Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:49:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > No, the "keep non-free" alternative does not contain any provisions > > limiting future discussion. It is also at best a "keep non-free for > > now" option. > > None of the alternatives contain any provisions limiting future > discussion.
Yes, exactly.
