Hi Mike,
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.
Cheers Detlev