Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > For stupid dak, in English now. > > Here's a typical shoplifting statute.
As usual, nothing relevant here. You do remember that we were talking about the legal _meaning_ of an act being established after the fact, because you can't determine the possible intent of the act after additional things have happened? As applied to licensing and licensing conditions, where you are unable to grasp that not adhering to licensing conditions without any presumption of honoring them implies that the license is effectively nullified rather than breached, even though this fact is established _after_ any copies may have already been made that _would_ be legal _if_ the licensing conditions were honored. Your quotes do nothing whatsoever to counter that. Instead they show a mad obsession with an example I gave, without actually countering them. For example, pretty much all of your quotes state that intent of theft can be assumed established when some ware is _concealed_, something which happens _after_ the ware is _taken_, when the _crime_ consists of _taking_ the ware with the intent of misappropriating it. So yes, we have the separation between the time of the crime, and the time of sufficient factual evidence establishing the intent constituting an ingredient of the crime. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
