Updated policy

[Petter E. Stokke]

On Friday 13 February 2004 19:15, Olaf Jan Schmidt wrote:
> "or which primary purpose is illegal"

This is dangerously ambiguous. Does "primary purpose" refer to the author's 
intention (in which case, how is this established), a percentage of use 
cases (and, if so, what percentage and who has the authority to document 
it), the prosecuting party's assertions, legal precedent, or what? The 
point needs either removal or serious clarification, and I personally feel 
it to be ambivalent enough that the former would be the prudent course of 
action.

-- 
Petter E. Stokke <gibreel at project23.no> http://www.gibreel.net/
PGP key: http://www.gibreel.net/key.asc
Fingerprint: 4FF3 12BD 692A 0FFF 984F  78DA 4776 81FB 1906 3A9F