It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer.
When you and others like you make responses of absolute authority and correctiveness on legal matters, then it’s fair to ask if you’re a lawyer.
Funny enough, every time that question is asked, not once does somebody come back and say “Yes, I’m a lawyer”. Instead they just double down with the same kind of response that you just gave.
Everyone’s a lawyer until they’re asked to prove their statements on a legal matter that they are advocating for.
If you replied with IANAL, and just expressed opinion, and not assumed legal fact, then you wouldn’t get that question.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You’re not responding to what I replied, and trying to obfuscate the issue.
You’re moving the goalpost away from the point I was making, that those who are not lawyers speak with authority of the subject and represent themselves as the final word on the legality of the subject, and when get challenged as such, avoid answering the challenge.
When you and others like you make responses of absolute authority and correctiveness on legal matters, then it’s fair to ask if you’re a lawyer.
Funny enough, every time that question is answered, not once does somebody come back and say “Yes, I’m a lawyer”. Instead they just double down with the same kind of response that you just gave.
It’s ironic because you demand someone be a lawyer to refute an obviously incorrect claim made by a non-lawyer. If you consider me answering the question you asked directly of me “irony” then I suppose I can see how you might consider that comment ironic.
It’s definitely worth noting that you’ve attempted to shift the topic well away from the absurdity of using an open licence to do the opposite of what licences do and instead onto the topic of who is a lawyer and the definition of irony.
When you and others like you make responses of absolute authority and correctiveness on legal matters, then it’s fair to ask if you’re a lawyer.
Funny enough, every time that question is asked, not once does somebody come back and say “Yes, I’m a lawyer”. Instead they just double down with the same kind of response that you just gave.
Everyone’s a lawyer until they’re asked to prove their statements on a legal matter that they are advocating for.
If you replied with IANAL, and just expressed opinion, and not assumed legal fact, then you wouldn’t get that question.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
The problem with your argument is everyone’s only telling you exactly what your own link also says; the licence only applies if someone needs your permission anyway. If they don’t need permission the licence doesn’t matter. You don’t need to be a lawyer, you only need to be literate.
And all that’s still ignoring the fact you’re putting a higher bar to refute the claim than to make it in the first place which is nonsense; anything which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You’re not responding to what I replied, and trying to obfuscate the issue.
You’re moving the goalpost away from the point I was making, that those who are not lawyers speak with authority of the subject and represent themselves as the final word on the legality of the subject, and when get challenged as such, avoid answering the challenge.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)