George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
> --cut--
>
>> Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
>>
>> 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM THE
>> UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM THE
>> U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE
>> MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
>>
>> Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree
>> with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is
>> stronger than a 'may' statement?
>>
>> I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a
>> reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I
>> see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what
>> we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you
>> are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in
>> trying to explain it.
>>
>
> Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement to
> bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and one does
> not agree with that law and has never accepted it before.
>
>
"Agree" can have two (actually more) meanings. In the context of this
license, you don't have to agree that the law is right or just ("agree
with it"), merely that it exists, as a statement of fact ("Agree that
the the facts stated are true"). The facts that are stated are that the
law declares x, y, and z.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature