[Foundation-l] UCMJ and Wikimedia

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 1/3/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/2/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Are you saying there is some legal reason *not* to ban all .mil's from
> > > editing, or are you just saying we have no legal obligation to do so?
> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "could not endorse".
> >
> > I aren't a lawyer (though my uncle is one), nor do I have a private
> > connection into Mikes brainbox, but...
> >
> > The way I see the contract everyone makes when they choose to
> > edit wikipedia, is that they search within their heart whether their
> > prior obligations are such that they permit or disallow them to edit
> > according to our customs, practises and the implicit rules for editing
> > wikipedia. The no "legal threats on-site" is part and parcel of that.
> > For each and very editor to see if they can abide by it. It is an
> > individual calculation for each editor, not something that automatically
> > derives from what IP they hail from.
>
> I agree, but I don't really see the relevance. I can understand (and
> agree with) the moral and ethical reasons for allowing .mil's to edit,
> but when the legal counsel says he can't endorse something, I'm assume
> it's for legal reasons unless told otherwise - hence my request for
> clarification.
>

Not everything lawyers do is driven by legal obligation. There is no dictum
that says that lawyers can't speak if they aren't obligated to do so.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]