Re-licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
85 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Thomas Dalton
2009/2/1 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:

>
> Anthony writes:
>
>>> Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
>>> especially when
>>> dealing with constitutional issues.  That's why I find it nearly
>>> impossible
>>> to believe that Mike doesn't understand this.  How in the world can
>>> you
>>> defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up
>>> out of
>>> nowhere?  Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some
>>> guys made
>>> up and wrote down on paper?  The very nature of the legal system in
>>> the
>>> United States of America is based upon natural rights.  "We hold
>>> these
>>> truths to be self-evident".  Self-evident.  Not created by
>>> congressmen.
>
> It is a common mistake... [snip]

I'm confused... why have you sent a reply (twice) to an off-topic
thread that died out over a week ago? Or did these get stuck in the
moderation system somehow? (In which case - Mods: if you don't keep up
to date with moderation, just delete emails that are no longer
relevant [and let the author know], it rarely serves much purpose
posting them a week late.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Michael Bimmler
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/2/1 Mike Godwin <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> Anthony writes:
>>
>>>> Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
>>>> especially when
>>>> dealing with constitutional issues.  That's why I find it nearly
>>>> impossible
>>>> to believe that Mike doesn't understand this.  How in the world can
>>>> you
>>>> defend people's constitutional rights if you think they're made up
>>>> out of
>>>> nowhere?  Why defend free speech if it's just a couple words some
>>>> guys made
>>>> up and wrote down on paper?  The very nature of the legal system in
>>>> the
>>>> United States of America is based upon natural rights.  "We hold
>>>> these
>>>> truths to be self-evident".  Self-evident.  Not created by
>>>> congressmen.
>>
>> It is a common mistake... [snip]
>
> I'm confused... why have you sent a reply (twice) to an off-topic
> thread that died out over a week ago? Or did these get stuck in the
> moderation system somehow? (In which case - Mods: if you don't keep up
> to date with moderation, just delete emails that are no longer
> relevant [and let the author know], it rarely serves much purpose
> posting them a week late.)

As I explained to Mike already: It must have been a technical problem
-- his mails are not and were never moderated.

Michael



--
Michael Bimmler
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Mike Godwin-2
In reply to this post by Klaus Graf
Ray Saintonge writes

>
> > Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your
> > legal defense in a criminal case -- "Hey, I was just exercising my
> > right to resist a bad king!"  -- is a good way to guarantee going to
> > jail.
> >
> >
>
> So much for the right to bear arms!  :-)


Oh, the Second Amendment can be invoked, sometimes even successfully, these
days. But remember that's in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Anthony
was citing the Declaration of Independence, incorrectly, as the basis of the
American legal system. Actually, the Constitution is the basis for that.

Incidentally, the Constitution does not guarantee either rights in copyright
generally, or rights of attribution specifically. What it does do
specifically is allow the Congress to *create* such rights -- a notion that
natural-rights copyright theorists can't quite explain.


--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Chad
In reply to this post by Michael Bimmler
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Michael Bimmler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As I explained to Mike already: It must have been a technical problem
> -- his mails are not and were never moderated.
>
> Michael
>
>
This was taken care of by Mark, see
http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/index.php?diff=18442&oldid=18441

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re-licensing

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Mike Godwin-2
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Mike Godwin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ray Saintonge writes
>
> >
> > > Trying to cite the Declaration of Independence as the basis for your
> > > legal defense in a criminal case -- "Hey, I was just exercising my
> > > right to resist a bad king!"  -- is a good way to guarantee going to
> > > jail.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So much for the right to bear arms!  :-)
>
>
> Oh, the Second Amendment can be invoked, sometimes even successfully, these
> days. But remember that's in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
> Anthony
> was citing the Declaration of Independence, incorrectly, as the basis of
> the
> American legal system. Actually, the Constitution is the basis for that.
>

Since the moderators don't want us engaging in this discussion I'll keep my
response short.  You are misrepresenting what I said.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12345