"specific" instructions is, well, "too specific".
authorBradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@ebb.org>
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:28:37 +0000 (11:28 +0200)
committerBradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@ebb.org>
Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:28:37 +0000 (11:28 +0200)
commite41145b6a2f440bfd01a0e648adb6179711212ea
treed070066293976c8698b689fb0b4674f20f2be9de
parent227b3f303905db2069d7e8a4a93eacd7beb94e5d
"specific" instructions is, well, "too specific".

I don't like "specific" here.  I see lots of CCS that has "vague
instructions" which are nonetheless helpful.  We don't want violators to
be able to say: "Well, the instructions we have aren't very specific, so
we don't have to provide them."  If all they have are vague instructions,
they must nonetheless provide what they know and what they've got.

Violators *will* argue this if we don't remove "specific".  So, it's
herein removed.
Drafts/copyleft-next