"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030318 16:54]:
>> Fine, in this hypothetical if he's unable to provide the source to >> folks in the US, the license would not allow him to provide the >> service to folks in the US. Exactly analogous to someone trying to >> distribute deCSS binaries. Exactly what hurdle he would have to place >> in front of US users is up to him (and his lawyer). > > And as there is no secure way to restrict people from a country, he > should not able to offer such services at all? I don't know, you'd have to ask a lawyer. There may be some reasonable effort you could make that would satisfy a court. But at any rate, this isn't a new thing. What you're describing is just as much a problem with the GPL. >> I'm certainly not familiar with German law (I'm not even really >> familiar with US law). But does this same liability apply if you >> make changes to a CVS repository? > > IANAL, but as far as I understood it, you are liable for everything > you distribute and all all-warenty-excluded statements are null and > void like they were not part of anything (At least for distribution > from Germans to Germans). While I think German law protects people > giving things away for free, they are still liable for damage done > willingly or because extreme lack of care. And putting two things > together without looking at the parts was ruled extreme lack of > care, I heard. So as German one is intrested to do the minimal qa, > one would want everyone to do, before distributing anything one > created. In that case, how can one submit updates to a cvs repository in Germany? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03