On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: >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.
I note you CC'd -legal about this even so.... Nice to see that you've taken _Animal Farm_ to heart so... BTW, neither was your Murder allegory on topic, yet it exists. Hypocrite. >> 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. Repetitive, aren't we? Yet still on the list... I regret my complicity in having FORCED you to post an off topic tangent in the first place and (heaven forbid!) actually having to support your position. We both know that you're much more at home using _ad hominem_ attcks, trying to get people muzzled, and straw men than actually supporting your position with anything resembling facts. >> 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. This is actually wrong. Did anyone from OpenSSL claim that Debian was in violation of their copyright? Was there a discussion (that I participated in, actually inside this thread because of thread merger...) about whether or not the 4 clause copyright was being violated, despite the clearly shown, by subsequent amendment, intention of almost all parties (EAY and LBL being the exceptions) to disregard clause 3? How old is the ssleay code that's the bone of contention? Do you think it's possible that EAY may very well have knowlege of the uses of ssleay and had a chance to do something about it by now? Is Debian still in violation of the ssleay license? Does the fact that EAY has done nothing change it? >Debian distributes lots of software (almost all of it) precisely >because the author's have officially said "we don't object". An Mind you, the informally must be in writing for Debian's purpose, and oftentimes decisions are made based solely on the document. In fact, you might even call the email a <shudder> license! >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. I've heard of emails being accepted as COPYRIGHT, but never an oral contract (even though in my jurisdiction, they're perfectly valid). Legally, the email is just as valid a license as the GPL. As for a real objection: I'm glad you used the subjunctive, because most of the objections on -legal have been of a possible nature, except the ones from GNU. In fact, for all of the objectionable clauses of non-GPL software, there have been few actual objections from the authors, and most of those are second or third hand through GNU--I, of course, can't speak for the paackages that've been silently withdrawn because of objections to the maintainers, but if I knew about them, they wouldn't be silently withdrawn, now wuld they? >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.) I know WHY Real has no problem, I even know WHY Debian does what it does. But it IS a clear circumvention of Real's license no less. Especially if the GPL'd software cannot be linked to non-free software on the target computer. The realplayer installer is GPL'd. It dd's a file and supplies the required information to the GPL'd Debian system. Legal? perfectly. Parallel case to the one at hand? possibly (it IS at issue). In accordance with Real's wishes? who knows? IAW Real's license? no. The thing is that the "community supported player" is actually on a Real.com server off the C&W trunk (the last resolvable from here is real-networks.Seattlesel.cw.net (208.172.81.138), then two hops into Seattle somewhere) so therefore can be construed to fit under the Real TOS http://www.realnetworks.com/company/legal.html?src=010613realhome_1,010613rpchoice_h1,RPDL Basically, Debian's already doing what you're decrying: subverting the intentions of a copyright holder by the trivia that it's not happening anywhere within Debian. I just used Real as an example. EVERY installer package does something similar. Ever read the old StarOffice license for example? Remeber the StarOffice installer? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. >Thomas > -- I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own decisions. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
