On Friday 26 June 2009 04:21:15 Detlev Zundel wrote:
On Thursday 25 June 2009 10:41:13 Detlev Zundel wrote:
It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which I seriously question.
whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, and you arent indemnifying them. their legal review says that it's a requirement, so it is now a requirement for the software. anything beyond that is irrelevant.
Now was this so hard? This is actually an important fact that it is a legal requirement for a company - thanks.
As a quick web research did not help, if this is a legal requirement, then can you point me to the law which requires such a thing?
nothing personal, but ...
(1) you still arent a lawyer (2) i never said there was a law that stated this (3) i did say "their legal team came to the conclusion that ..."
the law and your interpretation of it is irrelevant.
Wow, the law is irrelevant. I give up. You repeatedly claim stuff without backing anything up. There is nothing more I can gain from this discussion, so I let it rest.
why not try keeping up with the thread instead of taking things out of context. the point of this subthread was that the software people doing the work are told to do XYZ by their legal team. thus it is a software requirement irregardless of anything else.
plus, the law in these areas is hardly ever clear. it may state one thing, and yet there are precedences that take it a different way. or the laws have no precedence at all (which is fairly typical with open source) in which case lawyers are often very conservative. after all, their screw up here could easily cost a company 6 or 7 figures if not worse penalties.
your demand of black and white conformance in a pure gray legal world is completely unrealistic. -mike