Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law?
> > Negligence is also a crime.
>
> Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it
> exists within specific legal contexts, typically those associatied with
> guardianship (health or day care workers, parents, etc.)
>
> Failure to zealously prosecute one's every possible avenue of recourse in
> enforcing one's own copyright is not an offense under U.S. law, nor, as far
> as I know, anywhere else.
But it MAY neutralize the copyright, and you should know
this. Neutralizing IP fits under the aegis of criminal negligence: the
guardianship of salable property is usually sufficent to trigger the
criminal statute.
> > The FSF is violating the GPL when they make binaries such as /bin/ls
> > downloadable without the downloading of the GPL.
>
> This is impossible for FSF-copyrighted software. A copyright holder cannot
> violate the license on his own work.
True, but can the FSF hold others to a standard that they do not practice?
> > Negligence is no excuse.
>
> Ignorance of the law is not either. What's yours?
Widespread ignorance of the law is. Name one binary packaging system that
always includes the GPL when necessary. Five years without a correct
implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a changing playing
field, take your choice.
>
--
Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer:
"My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that."
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: