On Jul 25, 2013, at 20:37, John David Stone <stone@cs.grinnell.edu> wrote:

>        Hikari Boulders writes:
>
>> What is wrong with everyone saying "I want this to be in public domain
>> or as public as permissible by law"
>>
>> and then we would not have to play the lawyers games and can concentrate
>> on important stuff.
>
>        Even if you say this, trolls just won't leave you alone, as the
> current controversy shows.  The approach you suggest actually encourages
> them.  Remember, Musical Notation kept this thread going on and on by
> pretending to want to microparse the variant formulations that contributors
> to the discussion used in describing the open-ended R6RS grant.  The most
> effective troll repellent that I have found is to point, over and over and
> over again if necessary, to a big pile of legalese that says essentially
> the same thing you want to say, in language that can only be challenged in
> a courtroom.
>
>        The advantage of the Creative Commons licenses is that some of the
> world's greatest copyright lawyers have already done all the hard work:
> They have concocted airtight guarantees, expressed them formally in
> legalese, and made the results of these tedious labors available to
> everyone at no charge.  As a result, trolls have a harder time tricking you
> into playing lawyers' games if you use a Creative Commons license, which
> means that you can indeed concentrate on more important stuff.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scheme-reports mailing list
> Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
I told you to stop, I can't stand any more discussion.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports