[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their
> > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his
> > statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not
> > allowed to offer it. Then you offer it on your server and some of your
> > customers has a huge problem with that software and wants to sue someone
> > to cover their losses. Now the company that developed the software says
> > you were never allowed to offer it and with their own version your
> > customer wouldn't have got into trouble. 
> I don't think they'd be able to make a case with that, unless they can
> prove that we seriously tampered with their software and that our
> version is totally different from theirs. Since they've been doing most
> of the packaging work themselves, I think that's going to be very,
> *very* hard.
> If I ask you to please do something, I can't then suddenly turn around
> and say that you shouln't have actually been doing that something. That
> would be dishonest, and I can't win a case in court by being dishonest.

Well, is there a shiny piece of paper, or verifiable gpg signed message,
or anything else actually tangable that could be taken to court that
says "this guy there said it was OK"?

> > See I'm talking about a legal problem that isn't solvable by just
> > removing software.
> No you're not. You're talking about an issue that only exists in
> fantasy.

I think that you're missing the word "currently" in that sentence.

Brett Parker

Reply to: