Anthony wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ >
Well, your posited statement that there could be jurisdictions where the switch could be invalid is still utterly baseless. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
