Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:22:29 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 06:02:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
>> policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the
>> license it is shipped under is illegal; and we no longer have a
>> right to distribute it.
> Firstly, where are the GPL violations? All I see in the kernel is
> DFSG violations. Those sourceless embedded codes aren't being linked
> against the kernel in any way at all.
Would you please not cut out the context, and proceed to
attack strawmen?
>>>> We, the Debian Developers, will aim to release Sarge as soon as
>>>> technically possible (concerning release critical bugs and the
>>>> installer) by following the current release plan[1]. We are aware of
>>>> the fact that both Woody and Sarge contain components that violate
>>>> the current Social Contract (since they are not free in the sense of
>>>> the Debian Free Software Guidelines) and the GNU General Public
>>> The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
>>> policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the license
>>> it is shipped under is illegal; and we no longer have a right to
>>> distribute it.
The GPL violation was what was being proposed we ignore. Here,
let me quote it "We are aware of the fact that both Woody and
Sarge contain components that violate .... and the GNU
General Public License..."
> Secondly, when did violating the license become "illegal"? IANAL but
If you get software under license A; and you violate that
license, you no longer ahve the right to distribute it. If you
continue to distribute that work, despite having no rights to do so,
you are in violation of copyright law.
In laymans terms, when you commit an act in violation of the
law, we call it illegal.
> isn't a license a form of contract and therefore a civil matter?
And breaking civil law is not illegal where you live? Or you
do not have copyright law?
Illegal \Il*le"gal\, a. [Pref. il- not + legal: cf. F.
ill['e]gal.]
Not according to, or authorized by, law; specif., contrary
to, or in violation of, human law; unlawful; illicit; hence,
immoral; as, an illegal act; illegal trade; illegal love.
> You spoke of jail time but I can't see how that's relevant. Actually
> it's just FUD.
FUD, eh? You are quick to throw out such accusations with very
little research, I must say.
here are the facts: and people who sell debian CD's may
easily cross $1000 in a 6 month period.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving,
and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the
court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to
a sum of not more than $150,000.
(a) Criminal Infringement. \x{2014} Any person who infringes a
copyright willfully either \x{2014}
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic
means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total
retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United
States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction
or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be
sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. \x{2014} When any person is convicted
of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of
conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed,
order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all
infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or
equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or
phonorecords.
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. \x{2014} Any person who, with
fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or
words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or
who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for
public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that
such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than
$2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. \x{2014} Any person who,
with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright
appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more
than $2,500.
(e) False Representation. \x{2014} Any person who knowingly makes a
false representation of a material fact in the application for
copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any
written statement filed in connection with the application, shall
be fined not more than $2,500.
(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. \x{2014} Nothing in this
section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section
106A(a).
manoj
--
Sailors in ships, sail on! Even while we died, others rode out the
storm.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: