On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 06:39:39PM +0200, Guy.Bormann wrote: > Well, instead of speculating, it's maybe time to actually consult a > lawyer for this type of issues. This kind of discussion will occur more > often as media companies tend to sit on their property, or what they think > should be their property. Companies which do their legal homework will > eventually get an edge over the ones that drastically avoid difficult > issues out of fear to be sued to oblivion. This doesn't mean I don't > believe Geoff made a wise decision (see below) but it should not be his > decision in the first place. Some day, something will escape scrutiny and > slip through.
I don't see how not including it in the first place is protecting them anyway. They are distributing the source in their SRPMS anyway. So if the issue is the images, the images are on their mirrors and on the source cds. Not building the binary doesn't get them out of the copyright issue if there is one. There are only two truly legal solutions out of this: a) Don't ship xscreensaver. b) Fork it and remove xmatrix entirely, don't even include it in the sources. This comes back to the same issue with the SRPMS for openssl that you could rebuild with a higher level of encryption. If it's still in the source and you distribut the source building a different binary doesn't matter. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy? - Ghandi
