1 |
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:33 PM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500 |
4 |
>> R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> Then I'm quite confused as to why people seem to be extremely attentive to |
7 |
>>> copyright infringement (besides an immediate payout). In the US they cite |
8 |
>>> the reasoning I gave, from memory. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> Maybe that was for trademarks? |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> This is one of those problems where the nebulous term "IP" has infected |
13 |
>> our thinking. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> Yes, US is very *copyright* infringement zealous. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> But Trademark and Copyright are very different beasts. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Trademarks (read: brands, company names, company symbols, etc) do |
20 |
>> expire much shorter, but that's due to other reasons. Namely, that if |
21 |
>> your company ceases to be doing business for 10 years, nobody is harmed |
22 |
>> by people using a name of a company that doesn't exist, because |
23 |
>> "Trademark protection" is largely a device to prevent competitors |
24 |
>> claiming they're you, and to prevent competitors selling products |
25 |
>> claiming you made them. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Copyright (read: the right to publish, distribute, and sell) has a much |
28 |
>> longer life as the results of that can be inheritable, eg: profits from |
29 |
>> sale copyrighted works can go towards the estate of the author of those |
30 |
>> works after the death of that author. |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>> There are documented *exceptions* to this, but they don't apply to us |
33 |
>> as they apply to public institutions such as archives and libraries. |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> And there are exceptions in cases of "fair use", which Gentoo does not |
36 |
>> fall under. |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> So, even though it is true that copyright expires, copy right expiry |
39 |
>> dates are currently such that most juristictions don't have any |
40 |
>> software that could conceivably exist that expires. |
41 |
>> |
42 |
>> If the expiry period is 50 years, and there's no software in |
43 |
>> circulation older than 30, its kindof a moot point to argue software |
44 |
>> that is less than 10 years old might have expired. |
45 |
>> |
46 |
> |
47 |
> There's nothing in this though that says a copyright couldn't be |
48 |
> weakened by failure to enforce claims against infringers. However, it |
49 |
> happens that copyright law allows selective enforcement. |
50 |
> |
51 |
>>> >> Sir, please see my above comment about building ballistic missiles. |
52 |
>>> >> It may be important for the Gentoo Foundation to add a disclaimer |
53 |
>>> >> similar to the one I mentioned. I would hate for the Foundation or |
54 |
>>> >> any of its administrators or contributors to be found guilty of |
55 |
>>> >> aiding and abetting terrorists. |
56 |
>>> > |
57 |
>>> > Yeah. Stop trolling, please. |
58 |
>>> > |
59 |
>>> |
60 |
>>> I am being completely serious. You can find such a clause in the iTunes |
61 |
>>> license. |
62 |
>>> |
63 |
>>> If it seems ridiculous please reconsider the subject in question. |
64 |
>> |
65 |
>> I'm not sure how enforceable that clause is as a License. |
66 |
>> |
67 |
>> As a Warranty, sure. |
68 |
>> |
69 |
> |
70 |
> The point isn't to be practically enforceable. If someone put their |
71 |
> mind to using iTunes to make an ICBM I'm sure no one could stop them. |
72 |
> The point is that Apple has now disclaimed liability for terrorist |
73 |
> acts associated with iTunes in a very legally important way, which I |
74 |
> believe is related to export restrictions (the item of interest likely |
75 |
> being the cryptography portions of the digital restrictions management |
76 |
> code). |
77 |
> |
78 |
>> "if you use it for this, don't blame us if bad things happen, we told |
79 |
>> you not to" |
80 |
>> |
81 |
> |
82 |
> There's a myriad of laws that duplicate the intent of the basic laws |
83 |
> against property damage and taking life. |
84 |
> |
85 |
|
86 |
My apologies. In my dimwittedness I forgot to finish this section. |
87 |
|
88 |
There's a lot of overlapping laws that duplicate things already in |
89 |
existence. Likewise, people keep attempting to disclaim whatever |
90 |
liability the law tells them they have in shrinkwrap contracts. |
91 |
|
92 |
A good example is Li-Ion batteries. Did you know you're supposed to |
93 |
watch them and not let them out of your sight while charging? If you |
94 |
leave them out of your sight or do not take additional precautions |
95 |
that no reasonable person I know would take, then the manufacturer |
96 |
claims they are not responsible for property damage (read: fires) due |
97 |
to their product's defects. |
98 |
|
99 |
However, in fairly recent memory, the fires cause by Samsung phones |
100 |
were being blamed on Samsung, and other smaller suits have been won |
101 |
against battery manufacturers. |
102 |
|
103 |
>> Also, those are typically things that fall under "National Laws" and it |
104 |
>> doesn't really make sense to have to explicitly articulate in a |
105 |
>> software license that its intended use is to be done within the scope |
106 |
>> of your local governing laws. |
107 |
>> |
108 |
>> You're bound to follow local law regardless of whether you accept or |
109 |
>> reject a given license. So, its kinda moot. |
110 |
>> |
111 |
> |
112 |
> It is my understanding that this realization supports the view that |
113 |
> the link should be left in. It's up to the user of the software, radio |
114 |
> broadcasting kit, car, etc, to use the item in a responsible manner. |
115 |
> |
116 |
> I am worried about ceding rights where it is not necessary to do so. A |
117 |
> good analogue to the situation at hand is crowdfunded electronics |
118 |
> projects that try to be FCC compliant, or delay shipping to obtain FCC |
119 |
> compliance. They don't need to. They're almost always a product not |
120 |
> intended for end users or an incomplete product. This makes me afraid, |
121 |
> sir, because it may be the case in the future I can not produce any |
122 |
> electronic equipment on my own. |
123 |
> |
124 |
> Likewise, being unable to tell someone where to download something is |
125 |
> another situation that makes me afraid. |
126 |
> |
127 |
>> If your government goes and uses your software for military |
128 |
>> applications despite your license saying "don't", I'm not really sure |
129 |
>> you'll have much in the way of recourse. |
130 |
>> |
131 |
> |
132 |
> I'm pretty sure it would be one of the rare times, at least in the US, |
133 |
> that the government does not have sovereign immunity. |
134 |
> |
135 |
>> If it was that simple I'd just start putting license terms that |
136 |
>> prohibits people from using software I wrote as part of a state |
137 |
>> approved mass surveillance platform.... |
138 |
>> |
139 |
> |
140 |
> If you did this the military would abide by your license. They'd just |
141 |
> hire someone else to write the software in your stead. |
142 |
> |
143 |
> Personally, sir, I am glad that mass surveillance is happening. My |
144 |
> government tells me it is a good thing and that it protects me. My |
145 |
> government is made of good, hardworking, honest people. I have |
146 |
> conversed with some Gentoo users who have said that I should suspect |
147 |
> my government but I am not sure how to do that. In any case, the mass |
148 |
> surveillance programs are under the control of the military. The |
149 |
> military typically respects the law, and I would not mind it if they |
150 |
> used something that I had created. I would be proud that I was able to |
151 |
> help my country by helping the people who protect it. |
152 |
> |
153 |
> |
154 |
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
155 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
156 |
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:10:54 -0500 |
157 |
>> Gordon Pettey <petteyg359@×××××.com> wrote: |
158 |
>>> And this is all irrelevant since the copyright applies to the |
159 |
>>> software, not the location you obtain it from. Nobody commits |
160 |
>>> copyright infringement by buying a used book from their neighbour |
161 |
>>> instead of buying it at Half Price Books. |
162 |
>>> Distribution licenses are another thing, but if the original SRC_URI |
163 |
>>> from the ebuild wasn't RESTICT="fetch", what makes anybody think that |
164 |
>>> would suddenly change with a new SRC_URI? |
165 |
>> |
166 |
>> Are you a lawyer, and does this constitute legal advice? I ask, because |
167 |
>> the lawyers I've spoken to about a similar issue seemed to think it |
168 |
>> wasn't that simple. |
169 |
>> |
170 |
> |
171 |
> If normal people can not interpret the law, what good is it? Moreover |
172 |
> what morally or ethically consistent claim would anyone have against |
173 |
> me for breaking laws I do not understand and that may be impossible to |
174 |
> comprehend? |
175 |
> |
176 |
> Legality and morality are separate things, but most court systems like |
177 |
> to at least pretend they are based on some kind of system of moral |
178 |
> ethics. |
179 |
> |
180 |
> In any case it is my understanding that the issue is that simple. It's |
181 |
> the reason torrents and magnet links exist, and why there are no legal |
182 |
> claims possible against websites which host magnet links. |
183 |
> |
184 |
> |
185 |
> List, if I am wrong, please let me know. I do not mean to make a |
186 |
> nuisance of myself. I am simply not very smart, but I do want to see |
187 |
> Gentoo succeed as a project. |
188 |
> |
189 |
> Respectfully, |
190 |
> R0b0t1 |