 | | The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Allan Bedford
|
| | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <G3oFGo.JED@lugnet.com>... (...) it. (...) it, (...) do (...) one (...) alternate (...) Todd, your last statement has an odd ring to it. Perhaps you can elaborate. You are a person who (rightly so) (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think most thinking people would consider a lot of the junk in that "license" was unenforcable crap. If I buy one of these Mosaic things I'll display it, take it apart, and/or do whatever I want with (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —James Brown
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes: <snip> (...) <snip> I dunno if that was intentional or not, but it sure made me snurk. :) James (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Inviting it? No. Drawing attention to the fact that it is possible? Yes. Would I do it myself? Yes. If I buy the product and the agreement hasn't changed to clarify the confusion, yes, I will construct the actual mosaic with a separate program (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I'm guessing that you're reading negative connotations into Todd's statement that he didn't intend. From what I know of Todd (which is only via online communication, primarily on RLT and LUGNET), he meant 'exploit' as 'use', not 'unfairly (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Yup! The question of circumventing the ambiguities in the LMBOLUA[1] is an amoral issue (not moral, and not immoral, but amoral, meaning not in the realm of morality or immorality) and if you find an obvious loophole in an agreement that you (...) (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Especially when the "spirit" of the LMBOLUA is part of the ambiguity. We don't know what TLC is trying to accomplish via the terms they laid out. All we know is they put together a number of somewhat bizarre legalish terms. Now, if we had a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
