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.
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)