Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...] > We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...]
I disagree, as previously stated. > > I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence interpretations > > on finding hidden "implicit" meanings[1]. > > I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called "debian-legal" > would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the > context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free. There is no board of debian-legal, as far as I know. Further, I don't currently sit on any boards, as far as I can recall. I am almost totally non-aligned at present. Further, I am considering it in the context of both the licence and the applicable law, while you advocate selectively ignoring the law and parts of the licence. Finally, I don't "declare it non-free" and have spoken against such unhelpful ambiguous language in the past. > Do you think that this is how courts work in real life? It's closer than your process, but I don't really want to end up in court when it's not beneficial anyway, even if we think I'd win. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]