On Thursday 25 June 2009 10:41:13 Detlev Zundel wrote: > >>> It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which > >>> I seriously question. > >> > >> whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in > >> general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, and you arent > >> indemnifying them. their legal review says that it's a requirement, so > >> it is now a requirement for the software. anything beyond that is > >> irrelevant. > > > > Now was this so hard? This is actually an important fact that it is a > > legal requirement for a company - thanks. > > As a quick web research did not help, if this is a legal requirement, > then can you point me to the law which requires such a thing?
nothing personal, but ... (1) you still arent a lawyer (2) i never said there was a law that stated this (3) i did say "their legal team came to the conclusion that ..." the law and your interpretation of it is irrelevant. customers are viewing this as a requirement and thus it's the same thing. if you think there is an image problem, then feel free to assist the GNU project in an "awareness" campaign. i work in the practical realm. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
