On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote: > The US-centric critiques have been addressed[1].
...or not. That citation was inexplicably random. Did you simply pick the first thing which had somebody to do with CC and things which aren't in the US? I can't imagine how else you could have selected this, it appears to have no relevance. > Legal professional ethics codes are far more > complex and comprehensive that I think you believe, demonstrated by the fact > that you believe a lawyer can be under an obligation to lie (at best they can > be obligated to omit, and even then you can get in trouble). That's pure sophistry (although I can't say I'm overly surprised). Sophistry to excuse their behaviour is another big part of what lawyers do. > And what do UK > pro-consumer licenses have to do with a copyright license? That just demonstrates that you have no conception of the issues. There are more ways to do things than the one laid down in US law. > The law is both complex and subtle, such broad bush strokes both hurt your > underlying argument and cloud the truth. And that one's pure lawyer. "Everything will be better if we can make it more complicated". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
