I have had some experience, both personal and with trying to make others "get it", on the difference between 'moral' and 'legal'.
They are not always the same thing. I had the most problems with women going through divorces not seeing that while their husbands maybe "should have" done something ("moral"), in fact they did not "have to" do that something("legal").
example: Helping the kids financially after the age of 18. Often the ex-wife had the the kids living with her and supporting them financially. They felt that the ex-husband "should have" put up his fair share of the kids expenses. In fact, because the kids were over 18, they were classified by law as independent adults and therefore the ex-husband was no longer "legally" required to support them in any way financially.
In a similar manner, many of the CCL options may be classed as "moral/ethical" instead of "legal". I really prefer the legal tightness of the GPL to the looseness of the CCL. The latter relies too often on the "moral" behaviour of the parties concerned.
~ Merkey v The Internet et al Docs ~ Yahoeuvre ~ tuxrocks.com (SCO cases legal docs) ~ scofacts.org ~ eagle.petrofsky.org ~ Zen's Den ~ Yahoo SCOX Message Board ~ Lamlaw ~ Microsoft Watch ~ Groklaw ~ Korgwal - a Groklaw mirror ~ nosoftwarepatents.com ~ Flame Warriors ~ SCOXE Wars ~ Get your Merkey Number here! ~ Digital Law Online
Make a new account