[ILUG] SuSE redistribution
rory.browne at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 21:51:22 IST 2005
> I'm sorry, but Novell is not the relevant copyright holder for those
> four codebases. And copyright infringement is a tort, regardless of the
> purpose for which one commits the infringing act.
Novell is the relevent copyright holder for the DVD, as well as the
layout of the DVD(in the same way as Theo de Raadt has the copyright
to the layout of the official OpenBSD iso's), and (I'm assuming)have a
license from the relevent copyright holders to include the relevent
software on the DVD.
> Imagine sending a note to the legal departments of Adobe
> Software, Inc., Opera Software ASA, and Real
> Networks Corporation, informing them that you've reposted downloadable
> copies of their packages from your own Web site, and are just checking
> to make sure they don't mind, even though you technically have no
> legal right to redistribute, not being an authorised download site.
There seem to be a good few analogies, to other media here, such as
the fact that they are freely downloadable from the internet. I put it
to you that by your logic, ISP's would have to manually check
everything that goes through their routers. When your ISP passes the
software on to you from their routers, they are infringing copyright
law? If they use a caching proxy, like squid, are they redistributing
copyrighted material? If you answer yes to that then I give up, trying
to get through to you.
> And I'll note that you sidestepped my question.
Disagreeing with you isn't necessarly sidestepping your question. What
exactly was your question( the one I allegedly sidestepped), and how
did I sidestep it?
> [SCO Group:]
> > That is a completely different case.
> No, it is a different case in the aspects that I _wasn't discussing_.
> My point concerned the aspects that I _was_ concentrating on: You were
> suggesting that one could avoid obligations by simply not committing any
> act that binds you to the package's licence. My point in the SCO
> comparison is that you often have _fewer_ rights if you don't accept a
> licence than if you do.
I think I understand your point better now. Your logic is however
fatally flawed. The GPL and Propriatory licenses are different in that
the GPL promotes freedom, and propriatory licenses take it away(I
never thought I'd have to explain that on a linux list). Therefore
accepting a GPL gives you rights, whilst accepting a propriatory
licence takes away rights.
The SCO vs IBM case, and the involvement of the GPL, was centred
around the allegation that IBM used SCO code, and passed it off to
linux as if it was their own. That case has almost nothing in common
with the case of redistributing SuSE DVDs.
> > SCO were accusing IBM of revealing Trade Secrets, and all that.
> Which is entirely irrelevant to my point.
but completely relevent to mine.
> > Also....
> "Also"? Did it entirely escape your notice that you completely
> sidestepped my point and raised irrelevancies?
I presented a different argument, and just because it doesn't support
your point of view doesn't make it irrelevent.
> > ...in that case the code was actually (allegedly)used. If the program
> > is only a few files on disk, that are normally never accesses, and
> > never used, then I can't see the problem.
> See preceding point about copyright infringement.
See preceding point about code not being accessed, or used. See
preceding point about ISP's routers and Proxys. See that the copyright
holder of the layout of the DVD has licenced you to redistribute the
image of the DVD, subject to certain conditions. See sense.
More information about the ILUG