Re: Stallman Did NOT Admit to Copyright Infringement
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> please, let's continue this discussion on debian-project, or in
> personal email.
>
> I'm going to repeat a point that was made in my previous message:
>
> *no* *law* *was* *being* *violated*.
>
> Or: NOTHING ILLEGAL IS BEING ADVOCATED.
>
> You've made an unwarranted assumption (maybe more than one), and you're
> not sitting still long enough to become aware of it.
>
> Write me personally if you read this, but it doesn't make sense to you.
I would hope to not repeat what happened on debian-devel. People think
I'm trolling, but I'm not. I'm really sort of at a crossroads here
trying to figure out the best way to say what I mean and trying to
decide if I still fit within Debian.
It would be great if nothing illegal was being advocated. Then I could
send out an apology for being dense.
Some one posted on debian-devel that things have changed with respect to
copyright law starting with some case. I tried to look at the case.
Apparently the guy convincingly won in a criminal trial. I'm a little
foggy about what this means for civil liability.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems (in the U.S.) that copying or letting
others copy material that has a copyright that expressly forbids such
actions is still against the law.
Now, I understand your point that not all material has a prohibitive
copyright, and I admit that their is a possibility that this is the
case. However, it seems more likely that at least some of the material
in question had a copyright the prohibits such action.
The reason I say this (and this is a repeat of a bounced e-mail I sent)
is because the question was asked in the general background of "piracy."
His response was that he would let anyone copy his records and tapes,
and the very next sentence gives you a pretty good clue what kind of
records and tapes he's talking about, "music industry" records and
tapes. Lastly, unless Stallman has the ability to press his own
records, he's probably talking about the same records that were sold in
record stores way back when. I guess I would also throw in that his
whole justification for this was not that it was legal but that it was
moral.
Again, I admit that I could be wrong. It just seems highly unlikely. I
guess the most accurate approach would be to ask him.
If I've made a mistake then, I really am very, very sorry. I know I
wouldn't like if the tables were turned on me.
If I'm right, then I don't agree with the man personally, and because
the GPL is so tightly woven into Debian and Open Source in general, I
have to decide if I can live with and trust that man's copyright.
Furthermore, I can't be the only deceived Debian developer, and I feel
that others in my same position should also know.
Paul Serice
P.S.
I appreciate the invitation to reply personally, but e-mail to your
address bounces with
The original message was received at Tue, 16 May 2000 14:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
from mail@master.debian.org [216.234.231.5]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
raul@usatoday.com
(expanded from: <moth@magenta.com>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mail1.usatoday.com.:
>>> RCPT To:<raul@usatoday.com>
<<< 550 you are not allowed to send mail to <raul@usatoday.com>
550 raul@usatoday.com... User unknown
Reply to: