<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Yutaka MATSUBARA <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yutaka@ertl.jp" target="_blank">yutaka@ertl.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br></span><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
There is a reasonable amount of historical precedent that mandatory<br>
notification requirements make a license not open source.<br>
<br>
However, as noted in this thread, this question is moot because people<br>
can just do a) instead.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Yes. Are there any questions or suggestions?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What happens when there is no documentation supplied with the item?</div><div><br></div><div>S. </div></div></div></div>