De: Raul Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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?
I am. Debian does have a license (GPL) to distribute a work based on Quagga (the debian version of Quagga, both the source and the binary package). Debian is -- furthermore -- abiding to the conditions on which that licensed was acquired, namely: (2a) Debian put putting proeminent notices stating where it did change the files and the date of such changes, in our changelogs; (2b) Debian is redistributing said files under the terms of the GPL; (2c) as Quagga is a daemon this does not apply; (3a, combined with 3§2) when Debian distributes quagga.*\.deb, it also distributes from the same web site or CD set quagga-.*\.dsc, quagga-.*\.diff and quagga-.*\.orig.tar.gz. These are the only conditions to redistribute a derivative work of Quagga. > > 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. Contributory infringment is something about the US law that I think is absolutely insane. Thank $DEITY we still don't have them. Why? Because it's exactly like making a locksmith tool, or publishing the material on how to pick a lock, illegal: the intent of a tool is never clear. I produce 3 hours of security videos per day, and the tool I use for archival of those videos (a DVD-writing driver, with its writing software) is exactly the same tool that permits me to copy Star Wars III. I use my "how-to pick a lock" to open my own car in the 2 or 3 times a year I lock the keys in. And so forth. Even so, I do not believe distribution of a dynamically linked Quagga with SSL enabled is a breach of the conditions of the GPL. Not in Brasil, not in the EU, not in the USofA. Unless Quagga's copyright holders say otherwise. And most certainly I do not believe distribution of source code to a possibly-SSL-enabled Quagga is a breach of the GPL, either. And I made my points ad exaustam about that. -- HTH, Massa