Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.netwrote:
- Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to - layperson or professional - understood about it. Make a hard switch, as GFDL 1.3 allows. If RMS doesn't like it, too bad.
What jurisdictions are you licensed to practice law in? Dual licensing
at
least has the one added benefit that if the switch to CC-BY-SA is deemed invalid in one or more jurisdictions, at least the content might still be distributable under the GFDL.
heh, I find it amusing that you are questioning somebody else's legal credentials, after signally failing to understand even the most rudimentary legal concepts earlier in other threads...
I'm not sure what supposed "signal failure to understand" you're referring to, but it certainly doesn't preclude me from asking a simple question. And if by "questioning" you meant something other than "asking questions about", well, I never did that in the first place. _______________________________________________
Well, your posited statement that there could be jurisdictions where the switch could be invalid is still utterly baseless.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen