Re: Java debs anyone?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Java debs anyone?
- From: Colin Leroy <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:51:32 +0100
- Message-id: <20041214175132.7b4e59d5@pirandello>
- In-reply-to: <1103042676.21977.19.camel@localhost>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1102885518.18378.50.camel@debian> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1102957947.29301.23.camel@localhost> <email@example.com> <1103004803.18547.26.camel@localhost> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1103042676.21977.19.camel@localhost>
On 14 Dec 2004 at 08h12, Eric Gaumer wrote:
> > Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents.
> How is this irrelevant. Does deCSS not violate licensing issues? If it
> wasn't for guys putting this stuff out there, we would be screwed when
> it came to watching DVD's on Linux. So now who is wrong? I paid good
> money for a DVD and I can't watch it?
The case has been closed (and 'Dvd Jon'
won) exactly for the reason you mention - except it's stated
"reverse-engineering for interoperability is allowed". It may have been
different if the trial had taken place in the USA where they have
software patents and the DMCA.