Just to be clear, my argument does not allow for 6. Just because an alternate compromise is possible does not imply that my argument allows for such a compromise. As another person said, its effectively just the first.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 at the re-user's option seems like a good compromise. > > > Compromise? Between what two sides would that be a compromise? > > Might as well make it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 at the re-user's option. Now > there's a compromise, eh? LOL. > > Oh oh, here's a compromise. 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 at the author's option. Or, > how about 1, 2, 3, 4, *and* 5. LOL. > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:34 PM, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: >> This [1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 at the re-user's option] is exactly the same as 1. > > I'd say it's much worse than 1. It's certainly not *exactly* the same. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
