Re: apache non-free?
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 09:41:02PM +1100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:27:35AM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:37:14AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > IANAL, so could you give me a link to somewhere where a lawyer says that
> > > with this interpretation there is no legal risk for us in any country?
> >
> > Now that *is* ridiculous.
> >
> > We are in no legal risk in any country because, quite clearly, the
> > Apache Group are the only people who could file a suit, and they're
> > patently not going to.
>
> Now, they may be the only people who could file a civil suit, but any
> state/country in the world could call it a criminal offence. If some country
> wants to make a test case of whatever laws they've passed, what the Apache
> group think is somewhat irrelevent.
>
> See Dmitri and Adobe.
Yeah, in the Dmitri/Adobe case there was a complaint filed by Adobe
first. The government can't arbitrarily start prosecuting for Copyright
that they don't own.
In the US, the comparison is that if I file a warrant for burglary in my
home, then it is immediately a criminal case, and I cannot get it
reversed (still goes to court). But the police cannot randomly go around
arresting people for burglary (armed robery yes, but not simple theft).
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: