On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anthony wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >> * Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a > >> lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea > >> how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - > >> layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as > >> GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad. > >> > >> > > > > What jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law in? Dual licensing > at > > least has the one added benefit that if the switch to CC-BY-SA is deemed > > invalid in one or more jurisdictions, at least the content might still be > > distributable under the GFDL. > > > > heh, I find it amusing that you are questioning somebody else's > legal credentials, after signally failing to understand even the > most rudimentary legal concepts earlier in other threads... > I'm not sure what supposed "signal failure to understand" you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't preclude me from asking a simple question. And if by "questioning" you meant something other than "asking questions about", well, I never did that in the first place. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
