[AUUG-Talk]: Conference Update
lloy0076 at adam.com.au
Wed Sep 26 14:04:27 EST 2007
[David Lloyd said:]
>> Furthermore, if it
>> mentions the word, "Unix" or "unix" exactly *what* does that mean - from
>> a lawyer's point of view?
[To which Greg Black replied:]
> That, on the other hand, would seem to be of only passing interest.
> What really matters here is what we -- as aficionados of Unix --
> consider it to mean, taking into account all the history that has got us
> to this point.
Realistically, AUUG isn't allowed to disperse any funds outside of what
its consitution states and you may very well be right - it could legally
be what "we...consider it to mean, taking into account all the history
that has got us to this point".
However, we have:
* David Newall stating that LA may be an appropriate group
* David Purdue stating that LA may not be an appropriate group
...and the latter David points out the organisation's constitution and,
in my opinion, both of these David's have made serious contributions to
I'm really pointing something fairly obvious out:
* wouldn't it be better to work out WHAT we are allowed to do before
debating what we WILL do?
If option X is simply not allowed (for whatever reason) there's really
no point discussing it. Except for the sake of discussion :)
More information about the Talk