Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:18:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
> > > That bit would only be relevant if Debian was doing the things that got
> > > Napster in trouble. We aren't.
> >
> > Or if we're doing similar things.
> >
> > Such as: making available copyrighted works which we do not have
> > the right to distribute.
> >
> > Though, once again: if nobody takes us to court about this we'll
> > not have to face legal liability for it. [But we will be violating the
> > DFSG.]
>
> And once again, you're the only one who thinks we're doing this. The rest of
> us, as far as I can tell, think that giving a user a script that makes it
> easier to compile a certain binary does not equate to distribution of the
> same binary.
Actually, some jurisdictions (such as the US) recognize theories of
vicarious and/or contributory infringement under which the scripter
can be held liable for inciting and/or abetting the direct infringer's
conduct. My argument is instead that that binary is perfectly
legitimate to begin with.
> If it was, then the upstream would be as guilty as we are, since he
> presumably includes a configre script with --with-ssl as one of its options.
And if he had undeniable knowledge that when users did so they were
violating someone's reserved rights under copyright law (which they
are not in my already copiously expressed opinion), he could indeed be
liable. Raul is right to cite the Napster imbroglio as relevant in
this respect.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: