On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people. >>> >>> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are >>> the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the >>> game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in which case >>> the "public" requirement failed to take effect. >> >> But partnerships _aren't people_. I'm saying our current definition is wrong. > > They can be legal persons of Agora in the same way that real-life > partnerships can be real-life legal persons. What's wrong with that? > >> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have >> rights, >> and thus partnerships wouldn't. > > Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should > instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial > persons", and have R101 assign rights only to the natural variety. > > -root
But the very act of doing that removes the rights of them as persons, which is against R101, does a change to R101 have to comply with R101?
