[SNIP] > > i think "technical" people often think of the law-system as something > as C-code, as it's written there is only one way for a standard > compliant compiler to interpret it. I think the judges are more flexible > than gcc in this regard, they can also assume that one perfectly knows > that one is supposed to read http://www.cnn.com but not to read > http://qz25srv.competitor.com/internal/memos/strategy.doc (made up > example) even if -- from a technical standpoint -- there is no > difference. > > They will most likely assume that it was very negligent for the > competitor to leave his business plan in the open and value this in > their decision, but nevertheless you should have known better than to > state "I thought it was meant to be published". > > And yes, I'm normally also in favour of the technical viewpoint... :-) > > And of course all know that banners implicitly stating access policies can help support the legal standing when there may be doubts. Thanks, Ron DuFresne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!*** OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
