[PLUG] Re: [Eug-lug]Re: HB 2892 Proposed Ammendment

[Carla Schroder]

On Saturday 12 April 2003 3:16 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
> At the risk of pulling this exchange deeper into the swamp of a flamewar .
> . .
>
> Judges do not always ``look it up" in a Webster's Collegate dictionary.
> Most -- if not all -- will consult Black's law Dictionary. My copy --
> admittedly an old version -- has two definitions for the word ``open":
> as a verb --
>
> ``To render accessible, visible, or available; to submit or subject to
> examination, inquiry or review, by the removal of restrictions or
> impediments."
>
> and as an adjective --
>
> ``Patent; visible; apparent; notorious; not clandestine; not closed,
> settled, fixed, or terminated. Pratt v. Bloggs, 171 Ky. 106,
> 186 S.W. 901, 902; Dale v. Hartson (D.C.) 289 F. 493, 495."
>
> Black's also provides definitions for the terms ``open a case",
> ``open a credit", ``open a street or highway", ``open bids", ``open court",
> ``open fields or meadows", ``open season" & ``open theft."
>
> Does the proposed bill provide a definition of the term ``open source"
> that means substantially software that is provided with the source code,
> & the user is allowed to modified that source code to her/his benefit?
>
> Geoff

These kinds of linguistic nitpicks are necessary, I'm afraid, because people 
who oppose laws spend a lot of time and legal talent looking for nits to 
pick, and loopholes to exploit. That is why significant portions of contracts 
are given over to definitions.

Thanks again to everyone who is working on this legislation.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carla Schroder
www.tuxcomputing.com
this message brought to you
by Libranet 2.7 and Kmail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~