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

Re: Squeak in Debian?

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > BUT, we are only obligated to the extent the case deals with our own
> > actions.  I do not see a problem with this.  That seems good and proper
> > to stand up for our own actions.  The clause does *NOT* make us liable
> > for all legal attacks on Apple regarding Squeak.
> J. Random CD distributor on Battlestar Galactica distributes a copy of
> Squeak to his fellow argonauts.  The Silons sue Apple for contributory
> copyright infringement, citing the distribution by J. Random.  Now
> J. Random is obligated to defend Apple in US court, even though
> J. Random doesn't even know where Earth is.

J. Random CD distributor is irrelevant to this discussion.  Squeak would
be in non-free, where it's user beware and distributor beware.  We are
deciding for Debian, not for J. Random.  J. Random must make up their
own mind whether it is okay.

(And incidentally, in your scenario, note that Apple must establish
communication with J. Random before they can ask for legal fees.  In
fact, not only must Apple contact J. Random in writing, but Apple must
offer to let J. Random defend the case themself!  If Apple insists on
using their own bloated resources then they are on their own.)

> > I do not understand your issue about locality.  The business in question
> > is us, Debian.  We already have a distribution server at Berkeley, so we
> > already need to evaluate and comply with the laws of northern
> > California.
> The CD distributors are not part of SPI, the non-profit that holds
> title to the vast resources of Debian.  In addition, the Debian
> mirrors only look at local law when evaluating whether to mirror
> Debian.  They don't look up Northern California law.

The individual CD distributors should not be automatically distributing
non-free stuff.  Thus I still do not see the issue.

It seems like our non-free infrastructure already needs to obey US
export law, so I do not see the issue with us meeting that license


Reply to: