Legally, (in the US at least,) any ambiguity in the interpretation of a contract will most often be interpreted to benefit of the party that didn't draft the contract. In this case, the interpretation of license would likely benefit the user. But then, I'm only repeating what you've already said. So the ambiguity here doesn't benefit them legally speaking. I do agree, a frontline engineer shouldn't be trying to clarify the legal meaning in a github issue (without the legal expertise a good legal team would contribute). I don't agree that leaving the understanding to be ambiguous, is a solid legal decision.
Then, ethically. If someone ask if the license is trying to trap them, and all you do is shrug. You're not the good guy, ethically speaking.
> This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
This may be pedantically true, but the part that trumps the US doctrine of contra proferentem, is the original intent that both parties likely understood. The legal interpretation, while you say it may be confusing for some people, doesn't override what the parties reasonably understood the contract to state. Or in this case, license, to grant.
That is to say, if you represent your offering as open source, and enjoy the benefits of such. It's a fundamental error to assume the courts will later back you up when you change your mind, and attempt a rug pull. And that's ignoring the ethical implications, which are enough for me to wanna peace out. (I.e. if you're pissing off your users and supporters, it was the wrong decision.)
You participate in $the_thing so surely you must support $the_thing, right?
I would get value from stealing, I don't steal from people. The argument or question isn't about if it has value to some people, the question is, does the value to some people outweigh the costs that are imposed on others.
> Then, when the city council was only considering the economics of it, they jumped at the chance for the tax revenue and infrastructure investment. With essentially the same exact plan as before, one of the council members who rejected it before the NDA said "this is exactly the kind of deal a city should take."
Just think at how much extra money would start coming into the state, if they just allowed $company to build an orphan grinding machine!
> why it was needed in ...
"Needed"
I willingly pay more to participate in the economies that behave ethically. If you have to hide who you are, and by proxy, how you behave, to get what you want... It's exhausting listen to people advocate for, or be apologists for people who are intentionally ignoring consent.
> I think that arrest was warranted until thy could independently confirm the phone numbers…
Your premise is correct, you conclusion is stupid. "hey jon, pull out your phone, is this the same number listed on the county webpage for this office?" - "yeah jack sure is" - "hey thanks for your patience guys, and thanks for your help protecting the court house from the baddies"
Even if you couldn't do that, and couldn't hold them on site. Sure, transport them back to hold while you have the person on the phone drive down to the police station with id. There was NO reason to charge and arraign them.
> So obviously they don't think it's safe to use broadly.
More likely, everything gets added to the list because there shouldn't be false positives, it's worth investigating to make sure there isn't an adjacent gap in the security systems.
Leaked is not the correct word here. Generally as it's used, it implies some intent to disclose, the information for it's own purposes. You would call a disclosure to the war thunder forums a leak, because the intent was to use that information to win an argument. You wouldn't call Leaving boxes of classified information in a wearhouse where you'd normally read them a leak. (At least not as a verb). Likewise you wouldn't call it a leak if you mistakenly abandoned them in a park.
That said, IIRC For Official Use Only is the lowest level of classification (note not classified) it's not even NOFORN. It's even multiple levels below Sensitive But Unclassified.
So, who cares?
Much more significant is he failed the SCI/full poly... that means you lied about something. Yes I know polys don't work, but the point of the poly is to try to ensure you've disclosed everything that could be used against you, which ideally means no one could flip you or manipulate you. The functional part is to determine if you have anxiety about things you might try to hide, because that fear can be used against you. No fear/anxiety, or nothing you're trying to hide means you're harder to manipulate.
That feels bad even ignoring the whole hostile spys kinda thing.
> Conspiracy? If that's a conspiracy then virtually any protest that involves any planning whatsoever could also be twisted into a conspiracy.
Yes, that's what a conspiracy is. In other news, the sky is blue.
Conspiracy, to conspire.
Conspire, to make plans, usually in secret.
The reason conspiracy is a more serious crime is because it's worse; it's one thing to go to a protest with a bunch of friends, and then decide in the heat of the moment, when everyone's emotions are raging, I don't wanna leave yet. It's completely different crime to decide before the protest starts, in a secret group with a bunch a friends. There's nothing they can do to make you leave. And when the cops show up, and when they say you have to leave you're gonna throw a frozen water bottle at them.
In this case, they planned to actively stop someone from receiving the medical care. Do you feel that's reasonable? Should I get to decide what medical care I think you should have? Only on days I'm free to go out and protest, obviously.
Somewhat related, after reading florkbork's post, I'm excited to hear your reply about if you think crushing someone's hand in the door counts as protesting?
I think that counts as assault and the individual should have been charged and that's exactly the point about the precedent.
Compare it to the situation in Minnesota. Protester bites of the finger of an agent. Is that protesting? Groups of people follow agents around blowing whistles while they're trying to do their job. Can protesters show up at an someone else's workplace and start blowing whistles at everyone? Diners? Medical offices?
Now a situation has been created where everyone involved in those Signal chats could be...charged with conspiracy. The door is opened for that argument to be made and until the charge was thrown onto those women after the abortion protest, nothing like that had been done before.
FACE Act and Assault charges, plus damages were absolutely warranted. Conspiracy charges were political punishment.
I doubt that, but I only mentioned it because I just learned about that literally last night while watching video of a few police training officers review/discuss the video of the ND
> Now a situation has been created where everyone involved in those Signal chats could be...charged with conspiracy.
That's factually incorrect. You you're welcome to conspire all you want. It doesn't become a chargeable offence until you, or someone else who has contributed to the planning, commits some overt or articulable action towards that end.
It's not illegal to be present in a signal chat. It's not even illegal to hypothesize violent resistance/protest. It *is* illegal to make plans to violently protest, and then pack your car full of weapons.
Conspiracy is notably different from solicitation; because it's also illegal to encourage someone to commit a crime, even if you don't yourself plan to participate.
> Conspiracy charges were political punishment.
Nah, I do agree it probably gives the appearance of it being politically motivated. But regardless of how you feel when "your side" is "attacked". That's kinda how the legal system works. If you don't charge them with conspiracy, all the evidence you've collected where they admit they know what they're doing is illegal runs the risk of being thrown out, or otherwise challenged. If you want to charge someone for assault or battery, and you have text messages where someone claims they don't care if someone gets hut. If you exclusively charge them with the assault or the battery. And they put forward the affirmative defense of, yeah it happened, but they pushed me first. You've just opened the door to an acquittal because the video someone got starts halfway through.
Being careless enough to allow that to happen might even be prosecutorial malpractice.
> Compare it to the situation in Minnesota.
I try to avoid whataboutism.
> Can protesters show up at an someone else's workplace and start blowing whistles at everyone? Diners? Medical offices?
Yes? I've heard of protests almost every where, haven't you?
Follow up question, are Diner servers/cooks or physicians/nurses empowered to legally abduct people by force, and then protected from liability for any crimes or needless harm by qualified immunity?
If not, I think it's fair to apply different standards to different cases, and asinine to say, well what about [completely different group, with a completely different set of objectives, and completely different set of restrictions, doing a completely different thing]
a pet peeve of mine, (along with people brigading on issues/threads e.g. posting them to unrelated news sites... op....) is woefully incorrect language.
> at day 66 all our jobs started randomly failing
if there's a definable pattern, you can call it unpredictabily, but you can't call it randomly.
It's from the perspective of not knowing anything about the issue. It would look like jobs failing randomly one day when everything was fine the day before. Not hard to understand.
They've meant something like "arbitrary", in its "without any good/justifiable reason" sense. The word "random" is also used in this sense, especially when talking about human-made decisions.
Legally? Likely not. Ethically, definitely not.
Legally, (in the US at least,) any ambiguity in the interpretation of a contract will most often be interpreted to benefit of the party that didn't draft the contract. In this case, the interpretation of license would likely benefit the user. But then, I'm only repeating what you've already said. So the ambiguity here doesn't benefit them legally speaking. I do agree, a frontline engineer shouldn't be trying to clarify the legal meaning in a github issue (without the legal expertise a good legal team would contribute). I don't agree that leaving the understanding to be ambiguous, is a solid legal decision.
Then, ethically. If someone ask if the license is trying to trap them, and all you do is shrug. You're not the good guy, ethically speaking.
> This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
This may be pedantically true, but the part that trumps the US doctrine of contra proferentem, is the original intent that both parties likely understood. The legal interpretation, while you say it may be confusing for some people, doesn't override what the parties reasonably understood the contract to state. Or in this case, license, to grant.
That is to say, if you represent your offering as open source, and enjoy the benefits of such. It's a fundamental error to assume the courts will later back you up when you change your mind, and attempt a rug pull. And that's ignoring the ethical implications, which are enough for me to wanna peace out. (I.e. if you're pissing off your users and supporters, it was the wrong decision.)
reply