Re: Dissident versus ASP
"Bernhard R. Link" <email@example.com> writes:
> * Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> [030318 16:54]:
>> Fine, in this hypothetical if he's unable to provide the source to
>> folks in the US, the license would not allow him to provide the
>> service to folks in the US. Exactly analogous to someone trying to
>> distribute deCSS binaries. Exactly what hurdle he would have to place
>> in front of US users is up to him (and his lawyer).
> And as there is no secure way to restrict people from a country, he
> should not able to offer such services at all?
I don't know, you'd have to ask a lawyer. There may be some
reasonable effort you could make that would satisfy a court.
But at any rate, this isn't a new thing. What you're describing is
just as much a problem with the GPL.
>> I'm certainly not familiar with German law (I'm not even really
>> familiar with US law). But does this same liability apply if you
>> make changes to a CVS repository?
> IANAL, but as far as I understood it, you are liable for everything
> you distribute and all all-warenty-excluded statements are null and
> void like they were not part of anything (At least for distribution
> from Germans to Germans). While I think German law protects people
> giving things away for free, they are still liable for damage done
> willingly or because extreme lack of care. And putting two things
> together without looking at the parts was ruled extreme lack of
> care, I heard. So as German one is intrested to do the minimal qa,
> one would want everyone to do, before distributing anything one
In that case, how can one submit updates to a cvs repository in
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03