On Jul 25, 2013, at 20:37, John David Stone <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hikari Boulders writes: > >> What is wrong with everyone saying "I want this to be in public domain >> or as public as permissible by law" >> >> and then we would not have to play the lawyers games and can concentrate >> on important stuff. > > Even if you say this, trolls just won't leave you alone, as the > current controversy shows. The approach you suggest actually encourages > them. Remember, Musical Notation kept this thread going on and on by > pretending to want to microparse the variant formulations that contributors > to the discussion used in describing the open-ended R6RS grant. The most > effective troll repellent that I have found is to point, over and over and > over again if necessary, to a big pile of legalese that says essentially > the same thing you want to say, in language that can only be challenged in > a courtroom. > > The advantage of the Creative Commons licenses is that some of the > world's greatest copyright lawyers have already done all the hard work: > They have concocted airtight guarantees, expressed them formally in > legalese, and made the results of these tedious labors available to > everyone at no charge. As a result, trolls have a harder time tricking you > into playing lawyers' games if you use a Creative Commons license, which > means that you can indeed concentrate on more important stuff. > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports I told you to stop, I can't stand any more discussion. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
