On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> ...I suggest you review the thread that was provided and then see if you >> want to reconsider your veto.... > > As this vote is not about a technical issue, I don't think there are > vetos - we should have explicitely specified that this is a majority > vote. > > Robert and Gianugo, did you mean to veto this with your -1s, or just > express your disagreement with the majority?
i consider making claims about third party copyright ownership rather than a statement of fact is positively dangerous from a legal perspective so, it's a legal team veto until i have chance to review (my exam is tomorrow morning so i should be able to find some time in the afternoon) if anyone objects or feels that i am wrong then please raise on the legal lists. if sam ruby or a majority of the legal team folks feel that i'm wrong then i'm happy to be outvoted. - robert
