3 ms·

I very much disagree that you can't specify license terms on spam. Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom

by tensor 3y ago

I very much disagree that you can't specify license terms on spam. Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails about what you can or can't do with their email.

eqvinox 3y ago
> Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails The Economist doesn't seem to share your view: https://archive.is/1ahEz https://archive.is/1ahEz (https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e-mail-yada-yada https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e...) "Spare us the e-mail yada-yada" "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless" Looking at / searching around this with a wider lens, in some cases the footers seem to serve a function in clarifying the intent of the mail (e.g. "this mail does not establish an attorney-client relationship") when the remainder of the mail may be unclear. But that's not a license or contract, that's a clarification of intent. And with this I'll take my leave from this discussion as it no longer feels fruitful. But Thanks for the interesting thought exercise!
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > And with this I'll take my leave from this discussion as it no longer feels fruitful. You're talking to someone who's name is tensor. He's already nailed his flag to the mask on the issue of NN and ML. What outcome could you possibly expect? He's not going to change his mind regardless of any discussion.
brightlancer 3y ago
Lawyers are trained to lie. Unless they're specifically prohibited from lying (such as to a judge), lawyers will lie if it gains them an advantage. Do you think every attorney who claims at a press conference, "The facts will vindicate my client!" is telling the truth? Even when lawyers are prohibited from lying, they are trained to and expected to mislead. The "confidentiality" blocks in e-mails are completely unenforceable, unless there is a separate contract which it is included under. Never trust an elf^H^H^Hlawyer.

by tensor 3y ago

eqvinox 3y ago

> Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails The Economist doesn't seem to share your view: https://archive.is/1ahEz https://archive.is/1ahEz (https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e-mail-yada-yada https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e...) "Spare us the e-mail yada-yada" "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless" Looking at / searching around this with a wider lens, in some cases the footers seem to serve a function in clarifying the intent of the mail (e.g. "this mail does not establish an attorney-client relationship") when the remainder of the mail may be unclear. But that's not a license or contract, that's a clarification of intent. And with this I'll take my leave from this discussion as it no longer feels fruitful. But Thanks for the interesting thought exercise!

lelanthran 3y ago
> And with this I'll take my leave from this discussion as it no longer feels fruitful. You're talking to someone who's name is tensor. He's already nailed his flag to the mask on the issue of NN and ML. What outcome could you possibly expect? He's not going to change his mind regardless of any discussion.

brightlancer 3y ago

Lawyers are trained to lie. Unless they're specifically prohibited from lying (such as to a judge), lawyers will lie if it gains them an advantage. Do you think every attorney who claims at a press conference, "The facts will vindicate my client!" is telling the truth? Even when lawyers are prohibited from lying, they are trained to and expected to mislead. The "confidentiality" blocks in e-mails are completely unenforceable, unless there is a separate contract which it is included under. Never trust an elf^H^H^Hlawyer.