On 5/19/05, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to you. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that such > binaries are undistributable, Debian is still not affected, since we > aren't contributing to their distribution, only their creation.
That line of argument has its limits, as indeed the Napster saga shows; but (assuming that same counterfactual) I think (IANAL) that Debian's conduct is quite safe. We don't enable it in our binary builds; we attach a disclaimer to the notice of how to enable it (including a warning that the result may not be OK to redistribute); it's by no means the principal use of what we distribute; we don't have reason to believe it to be either genuinely infringing or something our users routinely do; and we aren't under legal notice from the Quagga copyright holders that they disapprove of our packaging. Judging only from Napster, that's a pretty good defense. Cheers, - Michael
