Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:49:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Actually, I have made that claim. I've even shown the commands
> to issue to obtain evidence that we do so.
> Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the
> pieces individually. But "we sometimes don't distribute the work"
> is not equivalent to "we do not distribute the work".
The work you are speaking of does not exist in our archives, as far as I can
tell. It can only be built on a user's machine. The resulting work would
not be distributable.
> > > If not, what are we discussing?
> > I thought we were discussing whether we can be held liable for the illegal
> > actions of our users.
> I believe the answer to that question depends on whether we can be
> shown to have some responsibility for those actions of our users.
You seem to be saying that if we make it easy for a user to do something
which is completely legal (i.e. compile a package with SSL support) then we
can somehow be held responsible for any and all subsequent illegal actions
that the user takes with respect to the package (such as distribution).
> > > As I understand it, action at distance is not sufficient
> > > to absolve us of responsibility.
> > IMO, you understand it wrongly. But we can agree to disagree.
> In what way is my understanding wrong?
> If I fire a gun, am I absolved of responsibiility for damage done by
> that bullet?
> If I hire an assassin, am I absolved of responsibility for choices
> made by this hit man?
You're making completely ridiculous analogies. If you want to be taken
seriously, you should try to stay on point.