In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin B. McCarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Don Armstrong wrote:
Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done to protect us from
this latter case. If upstream wants to lie about which is the prefered
form for modification, our choice is either to stop distributing or
pony up when they sue us for violating their license and prove that
they're lying. [But again, this is about determining which form is the
prefered form for modification, not about what we do once we know what
that is.]
If upstream sued Debian for violating their license for this reason,
wouldn't the onus of proof then be upon upstream to prove that they were
lying about what was their preferred form of modification? Given that,
I'm not sure a judge would be very sympathetic to upstream's case ;-)
Bear in mind, in the case we are discussing, upstream appears to be the
copyright owner. In that case, a Judge is *certain* to say "you have no
standing to sue. Case dismissed."
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
