On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > >> Sven Luther writes: > >> > >> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding. > >> > >> I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to > > > > Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV > > broadcasted request for patches should be legally binding did bring in some > > round of laughter. > > Did you explain to your legal advisor that this is a broadcast request > in the context where you're operating within a license obliging you to > obey such requests?
Yeah, sure. It is not binding. > > Furthermore, i was mentioned the fact that the request should be > > nominal, both to the modificator and the actual patch involved, > > I apologize, but I cannot understand what you mean by a request being > nominal to the modifier or the patch. Where does this idea of > "nominal"ness appear in the QPL? You Brian, i know that you modified my work with patch foo. As the QPL point 6c mentions, i request from you that you send me the changes in question. In a formal letter, sent as recomande awith avis de reception in france, so you get proof not only that it arrived, but your signature in the avis de reception. But then, i guess a fedex or DHL or whatever such sending would do too. This is the way i imagine a legally binding request, and the way such business is conducted here. And i send such recomande avec avis de reception, for all critical stuff, including employer disputes, house contract resignation and such. Friendly, Sven Luther
