This one time, at band camp, Ken Arromdee said: > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I think you're misunderstanding. You're not asked to agree with the law, > > merely its existence. > > Imagine a hypothetical where five years from now someone believes that the > law is unconstitutional and is embroiled in a lawsuit about it against the > government. This person does not, in fact, agree that the law restricts > people in any way (since an unconstitutional law is not valid). However, > the software license demands that he agree that he is restricted by law, so > he is barred from using the software.
I don't think you've read what you're replying to. If your hypothetical person is working to overturn a law, then there is an a priori acknowledgement that the law exists, correct? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
