 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
