On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 00:37 +0000, Tony Dietrich wrote: > So if this service is to gain the acceptance of the intended > end-users, and perhaps more importantly, get the backing of those > members of the Judiciary who would end up needing to use it, then we > may be forced to take the project to a more restricted framework. > > This is far from my preference, and is not actually my idea, but > knowing how stubborn and stuck-in-the-mud some members of this > profession are, I can see where that argument is coming from :-( Thou art lawyers, aren't thou? Your profession is to argue a point and convince someone of something... So, the method of trust is going to be based on something that you have no idea how it works (closed source), or something that can be checked up on (open source)? Yes, your client is guilty, but you'll just have to take our word on that, because you won't understand how... -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
