Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:04:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > But we are more like a book publisher than Napster. We have a license to
> > publish certain materials, and we do so. What the user does with the
> > materials after they receive them legally from us is both none of our
> > business and out of our control.
>
> Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based
> on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl?
Are you claiming that we are distributing such a work?
> If not, what are we discussing?
I thought we were discussing whether we can be held liable for the illegal
actions of our users.
> > If we were adding pointers to 'illegal' packages that random users have
> > built to our web site, then you might be able to draw a comparison to
> > Napster. But we aren't (as far as I know).
>
> I'm not trying to claim that our case is identical to Napster.
>
> I'm trying to use Napster to show that we can't always divorce
> ourselves from actions our users take.
>
> As I understand it, action at distance is not sufficient
> to absolve us of responsibility.
IMO, you understand it wrongly. But we can agree to disagree.
--Adam
Reply to: