John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So now this is a RICO case?! Complex acts usually involve Enterprise > corruption, which again has a different standard of proof. Unless you can > prove bad acts by all in the chain, forget a civil action on this one...
I didn't say anything about enterprise corruption. are you constitutionally unable to focus on single cases? > So? This is civil stuff again: IT'S ALL LEGAL! It's just is it damaging? > And the answer here is no, because the only way that this chain may be > broken into illegal acts is to revoke someone's fair use right, which > isn't an option. Violations of civil law are *illegal*, even if not criminal. "criminal" is a subset of "illegal". > It is an example of requesting that the end-user legally obtain > something that the upstream may not ethically provide. It depends entirely on what the case is. > Sort of like...say...realplayer.deb. If the realplayer people objected to realplayer.deb, it might well be illegal. But they don't object... > It was probably the intent of the GPL implementors to prevent such a > happening, but the language allows it, probably because they are > already pushing the acceptable limitations of fair use. Blah, blah, blah. You really don't understand the case, especially given phrases like "GPL implementors". What, precisely, is a GPL implementor?
