Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-07 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument > > that licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think > > that this revised FAQ preamble allows people to

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-07 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that > > licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this > > revised FAQ preamble allows people t

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-07 Thread Ken Arromdee
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote: > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that > licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this > revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely on the statements in the FAQ > sufficiently. I don't get it.

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-06 Thread Steve Langasek
Tom, On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote: > 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 publi

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-06 Thread Joe Smith
"George Danchev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote: 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 clari

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-06 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 23:58 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : > 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. Than

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-06 Thread George Danchev
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 vers

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

2006-06-05 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote: > 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. Al