Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Andrew Suffield writes:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> Incompetence (or laziness) on the part of the plaintiff is a perfectly
>> adequate reason to invoke either of those defenses.  Until you cite
>> specific case law, I will disbelieve your claim that proof of intent
>> is necessary, since Google finds dismissals on those grounds that
>> never mention malicious intent.
>
> Judge's discretion, probably coupled with bad lawyering on the part of
> the prosecution.

That is not case law.  It is not even a historical writing that
counsel could cite.  Show me the money, or I will dismiss your claim
as your typical bullshit.

>> Yes, Debian should make sure it will not end up on the wrong end of a
>> valid lawsuit, but that can be satisfied by other means than claiming
>> that widely used packages violate the GPL.
>
> "Yes, Debian should make sure it will not end up on the wrong end of a
> valid lawsuit, but that can be satisfied by other means than avoiding
> breaking the law"
>
> Umm... how?

"'Yes, Debian should make sure it will not end up on the wrong end of
a valid lawsuit, but that can be satisfied by avoiding distribution of
software' Umm... how?"

Come, now!  If you want Debian to get out of the distribution
business, say so.  No need to twist my words in support of your
agenda.

Michael