--- Adam Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > US law is braindead enough to make that not
> illegal?

Unfortunately our system of gov't is fatally flawed,
and there are lots of braindead laws now.

> > 1- we provide sourcecode
> > 2- we provide a button in rpmdrake to compile it
> and install it
> > 3- as long as we have a text reading "continuing
> is illegal by
> >    the us law", we are legal
> > 
> > Really??? Time to change your laws, people! It's
> simple
> > nonsense..

Agreed.

> Well - as someone says, making it so easy may be
> legally dubious. But
> the underlying point is entirely correct, i'm 100%
> sure of this. Under
> US patent law, you can publish a blueprint for a
> machine that infringes
> someone else's patent entirely legally, since you're
> not actually
> selling something *tangible* that breaks patent,
> you're just telling
> people how you could - theoretically - build a
> machine that breaks
> patent. I think it's considered that outlawing this
> would be an
> unreasonable infringement of free speech. The same
> laws consider the
> source code of software a blueprint, not a
> functioning machine that
> infringes patent, since you can't actually *do*
> anything with source
> code - it has to be compiled before it becomes a
> machine that infringes
> patent law. As I said, this is why Mandrake can
> happily distribute a
> source RPM for freetype that can be compiled with
> the patent-infringing
> bytecode interpreter, but it can't ship the binary
> library compiled with
> this option turned on; thus the single -mdk .src.rpm
> can generate both
> -mdk and -plf binary .rpms. It's also the reason why
> you can legally
> download the source code to LAME but not any
> compiled binaries.
> 
> As someone pointed out in response to my original
> post - making it as
> easy as a button in rpmdrake might be skating on
> legal thin ice, so you
> should at least definitely take legal advice before
> doing that. But
> certainly, sticking the SRPMS on the main CDs and
> including instructions
> on compiling them, both within the distro and on
> Mandrake's website,
> ought to be perfectly legal so long as there's a
> disclaimer stating that
> it's a breach of patent to compile them in the US
> (unless, of course,
> you've paid your license fee). IANAL, so as a matter
> of course this
> should of course be checked with Mandrake's lawyers,
> but i'm pretty
> certain it's correct.

What really sucks is you need a decoder to even
convert mp3s to oggs, so we either ignore this or
leave people high and dry :o(

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

Reply via email to