On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:02:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Word games. "If you license something then you lose the ability to sue > people for acting in the manner you licensed them to do". Don't waste > my time; you know full well that's irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant? If "agreement not to sue" represents a subset of the consequences of "granting a license", how can "agreement not to sue" be non-free when "granting a license" is free? [I'll grant that there might be some reason why "agreement not to sue" is non-free, but I've not seen those reasons described yet, and I see nothing to make me believe that what you're claiming is word games is at all irrelevant.] By the way, "word games" which are misleading can be dealt with by pointing out how they're misleading. And, "word games" which are illogical can be dealt with by pointing out how they are illogical. That leaves "word games" which are neither misleading nor ilogical... but... Claiming that a relevant point is irrelevant is an example of "misleading". Indicating that a relevant point is a waste of your time seems illogical -- it would be better to just drop out of the discussion if that were really the case. -- Raul
