Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
#!bin/bash
#
# Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific inte
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:21:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
>> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyon
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:01:51 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> > What about:
>> >
>> > The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
>>
>> A
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:43:22 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should
> read:
> public domain, take ∞
> not:
> public domain, take ?$B!g
Never mind, as it appears that UTF-8 interoperability between the Debian
ma
4 matches
Mail list logo
