On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
BTW Eben Moglen has an excellent article on how to do this right - robert
