3 ms·
> illegal uses are covered by laws that are actually about those illegal acts themselves. My point exactly. Which is why I'm so confused why you think you're d
by derleth 14y ago
> illegal uses are covered by laws that are actually about those illegal acts themselves.
My point exactly. Which is why I'm so confused why you think you're disagreeing with me. Maybe you need to reread my post?
- jlgreco 14y agoLaws against using something in a certain way does not mean that the something is "not for" illegal things. What things are for and what they can be legally used for are normally quite orthogonal. A "no illegal uses" licensing term is by no means an unstated default; it is in fact a rather unusual concept. As fair as I can tell your interpretation of the phrasing is that it implies and only means to imply "Illegal things are illegal", which is a senseless tautology. In reality this phrasing says more than that.