[Foundation-l] status of the licensing update

[Anthony]

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.