|
Kaylus1 has adequately dealt with most points.
KaVir:
I believe that you are wrong. I have provided links to things like SEC filings; your evidence consists of vague claims like "it could be interpretted differently" and links to freedictionary.com.
You're the one arguing for a more restrictive interpretation of the license than a basic reading would suggest, and at the same time claiming that you're right until proven wrong. That is not how science, law, debate, or common sense works. Because you are the one arguing for additional restrictions that are possibly contrary to the actual text of the license, you are the one who must provide proof.
Stilton
|