Re: legal issues (suing debian, pine, et al.)
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote:
> > > maintainers at risk. Exactly how much of the leadership and how far down the
> > > chain of developers liability extended is debatatable, and far from pretty.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yes, I'm quite aware of this; I'm a lawyer, and that is what I'm saying. That paragraph above describes ther risks "without being incorporated".
>
> Also, the fact of incorporation does not protect the individual who causes the liability. If someone, for example, places copyrighted material into the debian distribution, both the person and debian are liable.
>
> rick, esq.
>
I was talking about the other part. If one developer slips some
copyrighted material on the site, I doubt seriously that the leadership
could be held responsible unless they specificly approved it and new it
was wrong.
In reality, most people are simply going to ask that it be removed and as
long as it is, there is generally no problem. I think someone might go
after a Red Hat or Caldera before Debian. SPI is not exactly know for its
deep pockets. The BeOS/Lilo thing is a recent example.
Still, the simple point exists that UofW requested that a binary not be
placed on the site without their approving the patches. I have to accept
that since it is their software and Debian is doing the right thing by not
including a binary if they will not submit the patch for approval.
George Bonser
If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: