docs(faq): drop the bare legality conclusion from the peer-legality opener - #109
Merged
Conversation
…pener 'Generally speaking, yes' asserts a universal legal conclusion the project cannot back and that skimmers will quote in isolation; the entry's body argues the intermediary distinction without needing it. Requested by Ian after review discussion. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
The peer-legality FAQ entry (added in #107, refined in #108) opens with "Generally speaking, yes." — a universal legal conclusion the project cannot stand behind. Skimmers read and quote the first line in isolation; the entry's supporting evidence is US-copyright-specific, and no court has ruled on how §512 applies to a Freenet peer.
Approach
Delete the opener sentence. The remaining first line ("Running a Freenet peer is like running any other network infrastructure that automatically handles other people's traffic...") answers the headline's spirit — this is a normal, legally recognized activity — without asserting a legality guarantee. All of #108's jurisdiction wording is preserved. Second commit is a prettier reflow of a pre-existing long paragraph.
Requested by Ian after review discussion (accuracy/perception review of the entry).
Testing
Hugo builds clean; prettier clean; anchor links unchanged.
[AI-assisted - Claude]
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01UMFQxiSpfoUqxrEqQp5JXR