| 1 |
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:32:03 -0500 Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally |
| 4 |
| culpable for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in |
| 5 |
| our tree violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds |
| 6 |
| then the original author would have the legal right to take action |
| 7 |
| against us. It is not just a question of letting the user decide if |
| 8 |
| they want to use an illegally licensed program, we would be |
| 9 |
| facilitating such an act. That is something we cannot and will not do. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The Foundation is liable under the DMCA for proving links to software |
| 12 |
that can be used to circumvent copyright protection, and it is liable |
| 13 |
under regular copyright law for shipping source or binaries of a |
| 14 |
package without permission. What law covers shipping a description of |
| 15 |
how to build copyright-violating (but not DMCA-covered) software? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 19 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 20 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives