- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:18:47 +0000
On 23 Mar 2007, at 12:09, Gervase Markham wrote: > Gareth Hay wrote: >> As has been said, this isn't a legal list. > > And a list with "-legal" in the name magically acquires lawyers > with the relevant expertise who are willing to give free advice? > Hang on a minute, next time why don't you tell me and I'll open my mouth so you can insert the words? >> At best, we can only conclude that this is a very grey area >> throughout different regions of the world, and as such, is not >> only out with the scope of this list, but possibly of the spec >> itself. > > That's a non-sequitur. Why does it not follow? There is no definitive answer on the legality of this, the answer would come from lawyers, of many different regions, of which this list has none, so it is out of scope. > >> Unless legal advice can be sought from all potential markets, I >> think we are all arguing in vein and should conclude to distance >> ourselves from including this type of thing in the spec. > > That's the fallacy of unattainable perfection. Ok, so in risk analysis terminology, it is a risk to seek no legal advice on a legal topic, to reduce that risk we should get the input of as many different qualified legal persons from as many different regions as possible. Not only is that costly, but is out of scope of this list and spec, again. To be honest, I don't have the time to debate silly points with you, this is the 2nd day it has happened. It was *very* clear from my original message that my view was to avoid this issue entirely. You have picked one-liners, and deliberately mis-understood the email for the benefit of trying to make yourself look clever and me inferior. I'll help you out, I'm an idiot, you are god. Move along please.
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 05:18:47 UTC