| |||||||||||||
Relicensing and rebasing LibreOfficeRelicensing and rebasing LibreOfficePosted Jun 4, 2012 15:55 UTC (Mon) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Relicensing and rebasing LibreOffice by nix Parent article: Relicensing and rebasing LibreOffice
You cannot use the presence of unintended side-effects to argue that a rule is good Well nobody could argue with that, but how is that germane to the current discussion? Did someone say copyright law is good because it sometimes does the wrong thing? By the way, the term "unintended side effect" may be ambiguous. To a lot of people, that refers to something unanticipated, but it could also be something that was fully expected, but just not a goal. Here, I believe legislators and judges were fully briefed on most of copyright law's shortcomings and accepted them as a tradeoff, so in a sense they intended them to exist.
(Log in to post comments)
Totally Off-topic! Posted Jun 4, 2012 17:18 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> Here, I believe legislators and judges were fully briefed on most of copyright law's shortcomings and accepted them as a tradeoff, so in a sense they intended them to exist.
Sorry for the OT post, but this made me LOL and all my coworkers are looking at me right now.
Disclaimer: I work at a state legislative house, and for the last fifteen years I have been married to a district attorney.
Laws are like programs... but the "machine" that will interpret those programs are the lawyers, attorneys, juries, judges, and justices. And each machine interpret the program as they damn well please. And what we call "The Law" is actually some kind of "mean value" of the many runnings of the program (i. e., the program self-modifies each time it is "run"). And for a single execution of the program (a "lawsuit"), the result always depend on when and where the program is being run.
So, no: most probably nobody has briefed nobody on those shortcomings, and probably nobody even saw they existed.
|
|||||||||||||