On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, ag...@kebay.org wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:11:32 -0700 (PDT), Kerim Aydin > <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > This violates R101(vii). The only way I can think to get around it (it > has > > come up before for other non-natural players) is to re-define R101 so > that > > rights apply to "natural persons" only. This is probably a good idea > > anyway > > in a separate proposal, and a good time to do it while we have no > > non-natural > > players. > > Right, thanks for the proposal ;) But if I remember correctly, the Robot > has a similar clause... Heh. I didn't read the Robot quite as carefully, I would have noted it there, too... -G.
- DIS: PM protosal agora
- Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PM protosal Sgeo
- Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PM protosal Geoffrey Spear
- Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PM protosal agora
- Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PM protosal Ed Murphy
- Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PM protosal Alex Smith
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Kerim Aydin
- DIS: Re: BUS: No unnatural rights omd
- Re: DIS: PM protosal agora
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Keba
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Kerim Aydin
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Sean Hunt
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Ed Murphy
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Kerim Aydin
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Ed Murphy
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Keba
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Geoffrey Spear
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Keba
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Kerim Aydin
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Keba
- Re: DIS: PM protosal Kerim Aydin