Re: Significance of the GP licence.
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de>
2010-05-05 13:54:21 GMT
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.
"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
substantiatedi.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been
metand 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