[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Wording of Legal Issues myth

On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 12:46 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 8/21/05, Toshio Kuratomi <toshio tiki-lounge com> wrote:
> > The ForbiddenItems page is much more explicit:
> >   Of course, the logical followup is: But I want to get foo and do bar,
> >   how can I do one of the items listed above?
> > 
> >   The unofficial [WWW]http://fedorafaq.org provides useful answers on
> >   commonly asked questions.
> You can reference fedorafaq.org and call it a place to find answers
> for common questions.. but you can not explictly state which questions
> it answers. Thats the line.
If this wording passed legal, I'm not going to try to find fault with
it :-)

> How about instead of trying to re-interpret or expand on what the
> forbiddenitems text as written, we either site the link or quote it
> verbatim and leave it at that.  Any expansion beyond the exact text as
> written in the forbiddenitem page is going to need legal review. If
> the text of the forbiddenitems page has room for improvement we should
> inmprove the text on that page and use it as the cananoical
> explanation in all other communication mediums.
That would be excellent.  I would agree with either of those approaches.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]