RES: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
De: Raul Miller [mailto:moth.debian@gmail.com]
> On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > We have a license to distribute said material and we are
> > > > abiding by the terms of the license. You might as well say
> > > > that book publishers are contributing to infringement
> > > > because books are so easy to photocopy.
> > >
> > > Except book publishers have hundreds of years of track record
> > > where books were not easy to photocopy. So it's hard to see
> > > how you can draw this analogy. What did book publishers do,
> > > recently, that they weren't doing before, that made books easy
> > > to photocopy?
> > >
> > > Also, Napster wasn't distributing anything in violation of any
> > > copyright licenses, so I don't see how this argument of yours
> > > shows that that analogy is irrelevant.
> >
> > 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?
I am. Debian does have a license (GPL) to distribute a work based on
Quagga (the debian version of Quagga, both the source and the binary
package). Debian is -- furthermore -- abiding to the conditions on
which that licensed was acquired, namely:
(2a) Debian put putting proeminent notices stating where it did
change the files and the date of such changes, in our changelogs;
(2b) Debian is redistributing said files under the terms of the GPL;
(2c) as Quagga is a daemon this does not apply;
(3a, combined with 3§2) when Debian distributes quagga.*\.deb, it
also distributes from the same web site or CD set quagga-.*\.dsc,
quagga-.*\.diff and quagga-.*\.orig.tar.gz.
These are the only conditions to redistribute a derivative work of
Quagga.
>
> If not, what are we discussing?
>
> > 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.
Contributory infringment is something about the US law that I think
is absolutely insane.
Thank $DEITY we still don't have them.
Why? Because it's exactly like making a locksmith tool, or
publishing the material on how to pick a lock, illegal: the intent
of a tool is never clear. I produce 3 hours of security videos per
day, and the tool I use for archival of those videos (a DVD-writing
driver, with its writing software) is exactly the same tool that
permits me to copy Star Wars III. I use my "how-to pick a lock" to
open my own car in the 2 or 3 times a year I lock the keys in. And
so forth.
Even so, I do not believe distribution of a dynamically linked
Quagga with SSL enabled is a breach of the conditions of the GPL.
Not in Brasil, not in the EU, not in the USofA.
Unless Quagga's copyright holders say otherwise.
And most certainly I do not believe distribution of source code to a
possibly-SSL-enabled Quagga is a breach of the GPL, either.
And I made my points ad exaustam about that.
--
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: