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. customers are viewing this as a requirement and thus it's the same thing. if you think there is an image problem, then feel free to assist the GNU project in an "awareness" campaign. i work in the practical realm. -mike