| From: | "Robert D(dot) Nelson" <RDNELSON(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, mikeo <mikeo(at)spectrumtelecorp(dot)com>, selkovjr <selkovjr(at)mcs(dot)anl(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL GENERAL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: responses to licensing discussion |
| Date: | 2000-07-06 12:15:00 |
| Message-ID: | 395B0101@rba6.rbapro.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>not being from maryland but, i would think that the constitution's
>prohibition against ex post facto laws would prevent retro-active
>applications of laws, if the usa actually followed the constitution;
>but that's another topic...
Ex post facto seems pretty one way. If you drop a cigg butt on the ground
today, and tomorrow your town votes to make it illegal to throw cigg butts
on the ground, you aren't held liable unless you do it again, AFTER the law
was passed. I'm curious tho - if you sue Oracle today, and UCITA is passed
tomorrow, does UCITA wipe out your suit?
Rob Nelson
rdnelson(at)co(dot)centre(dot)pa(dot)us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Daniels | 2000-07-06 12:59:03 | Re: PostgreSQL & the BSD License |
| Previous Message | John Daniels | 2000-07-06 11:21:51 | Re: PostgreSQL & the BSD License |