[Foundation-l] status of the licensing update

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
>   
>> wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>> Anthony wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henning Schlottmann
>>> <h.schlottmann at gmx.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> * 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