On Fri, 17 May 2002, Juergen Katins wrote:

> I would suggest you encourage AWL to use the license options provided
> by the OPL next time.

You seem to be very interested in the parts of the license that aren't
there.  What about the parts that *are* there?

For example, there's the part that says that translations have to
perpetuate the OPL.  You seem distinctly uninterested in that.

Can you explain -- concretely, and with direct reference to the OPL's
requirement that the OPL travel with translations -- why you think you
are entitled to have stripped the OPL from this work?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav