On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > We have a license to distribute said material and we are abiding by the > > > terms > > > of the license. You might as well say that book publishers are > > > contributing > > > to infringement because books are so easy to photocopy. > > > > Except book publishers have hundreds of years of track record where > > books were not easy to photocopy. So it's hard to see how you can > > draw this analogy. What did book publishers do, recently, that they > > weren't doing before, that made books easy to photocopy? > > > > Also, Napster wasn't distributing anything in violation of any copyright > > licenses, so I don't see how this argument of yours shows that that > > analogy is irrelevant. > > But we are more like a book publisher than Napster. We have a license to > publish certain materials, and we do so. What the user does with the > materials after they receive them legally from us is both none of our > business and out of our control.
Are you claiming that we have a license to distribute the work based on the program Quagga which also contains and uses openssl? If not, what are we discussing? > If we were adding pointers to 'illegal' packages that random users have > built to our web site, then you might be able to draw a comparison to > Napster. But we aren't (as far as I know). I'm not trying to claim that our case is identical to Napster. I'm trying to use Napster to show that we can't always divorce ourselves from actions our users take. As I understand it, action at distance is not sufficient to absolve us of responsibility. -- Raul