On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 09:41 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
> On 2/28/06, Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure that going over https would make it any more legally
> > binding...
>
> If I said "https", then I'd agree with you, but I didn't. I said
> "secure", but perhaps that wa
On 2/28/06, Owen Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure that going over https would make it any more legally
> binding...
If I said "https", then I'd agree with you, but I didn't. I said
"secure", but perhaps that was the wrong word. The semantic I'm
looking for is "there is some way to
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:41 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps - this has been discussed on the Board for years. As I
> > understand it, the guidance from legal consultations so far has not
> > helped sketch out such a guideline, a
On 2/27/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps - this has been discussed on the Board for years. As I
> understand it, the guidance from legal consultations so far has not
> helped sketch out such a guideline, and I was under the impression that
> there is little, if any, legal pr
