Adam McKenna writes: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > Adam McKenna wrote: > > >That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use > > >one > > >copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies > > >on > > >multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more > > >than one copy at a time, > > The plaintiff needs to do no such thing; all he needs to show is that > > your copies were not for archival purposes only. > > How would you propose he do that without my cooperation? How would he even > find out about it?
Maybe a disgruntled friend/family member/employee tells him. Perhaps some software vendor installed spyware or other monitoring software. Who knows? That's not the kind of question we generally consider when deciding whether a license is free. > > And since you're stating "yeah, I used them" you've said they're not for > > archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well. > > And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he > prove it? The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies specifically to criminal charges. Copyright infringement cases are more often civil suits. Civil suits also use a preponderance of evidence rule to decide who wins; if the defendant does not testify, whatever is on his computer will speak pretty loudly. Are you seriously suggesting that something is fit for Debian if exercising certain DFSG freedoms violates the license, but a violator is unlikely to be caught doing it? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
