John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, but you used language that only occurs in such cases (actually no, it > also occurs in most conspiracy theories, but the GPL is used IN quite a > few conspiracy theories) ((note: it's a plausible parallel: for what is > enterprise corruption but a conspiracy theory that's proven right?))
Questions about what sort of language I used are not on topic for this mailing list. Please take the discussion elsewhere. > No. Just no. Violations of civil law aren't PROHIBITED. Questions about the moral or prohibitionary character of civil law violations are not on topic for this mailing list. Please take the discussion elsewhere. > Where does an objection change the legality of an issue? I object to > paying my taxes, but failing to pay them is illegal all the same. This is actually sometimes on-topic, so I'll answer. If the copyright owner doesn't mind you doing X, then you can do it. The copyright owner's objection (or lack thereof) indeed has a great deal to do with the matter. Debian distributes lots of software (almost all of it) precisely because the author's have officially said "we don't object". An informal statement to that effect is often as good, particularly near the gray areas of copyright, though if a formal objection were to appear, we might have to consider carefully. realplayer.deb is such a case: near the boundary. If the realplayer people were to object, we might well decide that the appropriate course is to remove the package. But in fact, they don't object. (And, if you think about their motives for requiring people to get the sw direct from their web site, you'll see why they don't.) Thomas
