[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: public domain

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

> 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/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: