Tom Maitland

Sorry fat fingered. The wording we’ve used in the past is not a definition, just a simple exclusion: > misinformation, disinformation, or any incorrect or misleading information presented as fact

I think scenario 3 would be allowed under the license. If a host is using entirely power from fossil fuel generation, they're not `deriv[ing] a majority of income from actions...

The UDHR has: **Article 12.** No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has...

Good definition – do we still need to add it or is the UDHR's definition of `arbitrary interference` enough? My argument against adding it would be the same as [my...

The UDHR already covers this I think: - Article 5 - `No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.` - Article 3...

We just need to strike a balance in the license between simplicity and using already agreed-to international definitions, and creating a laundry-list of all the evil in the world. We...

I think we're getting quite far beyond the practical scope of this license. Here we're talking about waring states and the jurisdiction of a Court who waring states often ignore....

Yeah – that is a realistic scenario but I would argue that it's already covered by `violence (except where required to protect public safety)`. Of course Russia may claim its...

@IRod22 We agree that a license such as this is badly needed, and the milestones are quite overdue. We haven't been able to spent a lot of time moving this...

I believe doxing and blackmailing are adequately covered by [Article 12 of the UDHR](https://github.com/raisely/NoHarm/blob/publish/documents/UDHR.md#article-12) or covered by criminal codes and we don't need these called out specifically in the license....