gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Significance of the GP licence.


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 15:54:21 +0200

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You won't find any.  And that's the point.

Since it is YOU GNUtians who are crying "copyright violation",
"copyright violation"... which is a tort and on a large scale it is even
a crime, IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE CLAIM YOU IDIOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

"It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of
innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt. Similarly, mere lack
of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence. For this
reason (among others), Western legal systems err on the side of caution.
Simply the act of taking a defendant before a court is not adequate
evidence to presume anything. Courts require evidence of guilt to be
presented first, adequate for the court to find that the charge has been
substantiated—i.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been
met—and only after this burden is met is the defense obliged to present
counter-evidence of innocence. If the burden of proof is not met, that
does not imply that the defendant is innocent. Hence, in such a case,
the defendant is found "not guilty", except in Scotland, where the jury
also has the option to return a verdict of not proven.

Also, as a hypothetical example of an "argument from personal
incredulity," defined above, suppose someone were to argue:

- I cannot imagine any way for Person P to have executed action X
without committing a crime Y

- Therefore, Person P must be guilty of crime Y.

Merely because the person making the argument cannot imagine how
scenario "A" might have happened does not necessarily mean that the
person's preferred conclusion (scenario "B") is correct. As with other
forms of the argument from ignorance, the arguer in this instance has
arrived at a conclusion without any evidence supporting the preferred
hypothesis, merely for lack of being able to imagine the alternative.

The same principles of logic apply to the civil law, although the
required burdens of proof generally are different. As well, these
principles of logic apply to the introduction of a given component of a
legal case by either a complainant or a defendant. That is, the mere
lack of evidence in favor of a proposition put forth by a party in a
legal proceeding (e.g., the assertion "she couldn't have left the house
and returned in time to do X..." is offered without evidence in support)
would not properly be taken as evidence in favor of an alternative
explanation (e.g., "she did leave the house and return in time to do
X...")."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]