From:	Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200210180731.JAA21814@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: Licences in 2.04 DSMs [PATCH]
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:31:58 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To:	<E182CGg-0000Zs-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Oct 17, 2002 04:45:16 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Index: djdev204/djdev204.dsm
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/djgpp/djgpp/distrib/p/djdev204/djdev204.dsm,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -p -u -3 -r1.1 djdev204.dsm
> --- djdev204/djdev204.dsm	17 Oct 2002 11:08:56 -0000	1.1
> +++ djdev204/djdev204.dsm	17 Oct 2002 15:31:01 -0000
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ sources-dsm: djlsr204
>  manifest: djdev204
>  
>  short-description: DJGPP Development Kit and Runtime
> -license: Mostly the GNU General Public License with modifications
> +license: Mostly the GNU General and Library General Public Licenses with some allowed exceptions - see copying.dj.

Why the "Mostly" word. Wouldn't the statement be correct without
mostly? Mostly is so indefinite.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -