Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...]
> We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...]
I disagree, as previously stated.
> > I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence interpretations
> > on finding hidden "implicit" meanings[1].
>
> I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called "debian-legal"
> would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the
> context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free.
There is no board of debian-legal, as far as I know. Further, I don't
currently sit on any boards, as far as I can recall. I am almost
totally non-aligned at present.
Further, I am considering it in the context of both the licence and
the applicable law, while you advocate selectively ignoring the law
and parts of the licence.
Finally, I don't "declare it non-free" and have spoken against such
unhelpful ambiguous language in the past.
> Do you think that this is how courts work in real life?
It's closer than your process, but I don't really want to end up in
court when it's not beneficial anyway, even if we think I'd win.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: