Re: your mail
Hi Jennifer, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:45:17AM -0400, Jennifer Nielsen wrote: > I believe my personal, private data( photos, videoing, watching, recording > audio, etc.) Has been tampered with, and placed on the Debian FTP site, > without my permission or knowledge. Your copyright permission notice states > that without permission from me it becomes a copyright, patent issue. I > believe that money has been involved in distribution of it. If you have > advice for me or a way to help, I greatly appreciate it! Thank u I think you must have misunderstood something. The Debian FTP site is this: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ This site is used to distribute the Debian operating system, which is Free Software. No private data is distributed from this site. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: your mail
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: > Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. "Is making and > using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? > <> ". As I read that, it's simply saying that the "you" in the FAQ can > be a company, and as such internal distribution is just "use" and the > GPL doesn't apply. That makes sense. Then again, easyco's page says: Local subsidiaries and franchisees are clearly separate business entities and considered distribution rather than use. Similarly, provision of non-GPL-compliant copies to independent contractors under non-GPL terms may constitute unpermitted distribution. When in doubt, have your attorney review your usage for compliance, or purchase a commercial QM license. There's a bit of fud in there, and a bit of sales pitch, but they seem to be leaving the boundaries in the same place as the fsf. I'm not sure. But this is where we get the interaction between copyright treaties, and national contract law (plus business practice). I've worked in companies where subsidiaries were simply a convenient accounting fiction. Internal resources were shared and not apportioned, etc (especially central computer facilities!). And our definition of an independent subsidiary is very different from yours ... As with so much of their faq, it seems to me to depend on contract law. Except the GPL is not a contract, and the law as it applies to me is very different from that which applies to them. (NB - if you were wondering why you can't email my other email address (the thewolery one), I was wondering similar things. I've sussed it's probably my anti-spam rules - damn spam! :-( Cheers, Wol This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 8272 5300, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333.
Re: your mail
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: > Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. "Is making and > using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? > <> ". As I read that, it's simply saying that the "you" in the FAQ can > be a company, and as such internal distribution is just "use" and the > GPL doesn't apply. That makes sense. Then again, easyco's page says: Local subsidiaries and franchisees are clearly separate business entities and considered distribution rather than use. Similarly, provision of non-GPL-compliant copies to independent contractors under non-GPL terms may constitute unpermitted distribution. When in doubt, have your attorney review your usage for compliance, or purchase a commercial QM license. There's a bit of fud in there, and a bit of sales pitch, but they seem to be leaving the boundaries in the same place as the fsf. Mind you, in most companies the data is likely a lot more significant than the code. Hard coding business secrets into a program likely indicates a lack of flexibility and is probably a sign that the business is in trouble. -- Raul
Re: your mail
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:33:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:16:22PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > > > > > Also, in any sane legal > > > > > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the > > > > > licence, > > > > > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve > > > > > what they > > > > > get. > > > > > > > > In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going > > > > on from both sides before he even considers dismissing the case. That > > > > > > Ok, but we are in the case where the defendor is innocent, right ? > > > > So? The cost of defending against the suit is still considerable. And > > there is no guarantee of being awarded costs even for a frivolous lawsuit, > > let alone collecting. > > Well, the cost would be mostly the same, but i answered that elsewhere to you. Same costs to me if brought in Sydney, Australia, as if brought in Versailles, France? No way in hell. > > > > means that the user has to hire a French lawyer to write a response to > > > > the statement of cause. Unless the judges are omniscient, that's what > > > > has to happen. > > > > > > What exactly is stopping him from hiring a local lawyer to write the > > > statement > > > and sent it per letter to the judge, and how will it differ from the case > > > where the court of venue is local to him ? The choice of law is the > > > french law > > > in both case. > > > > It's still very costly. Here's an example from the US: > > http://mainsleazespam.com/law/ema.html > > Yeah, but cost in the US and cost elsewhere may not be comparable. And we have > free legal counsel here. And an instruction judge, which mean that you have to > somehow convince the judge of the legalities of your claim before the lawsuit > starts. This would not be the case in the US, i think. >From memory, there is an initial validity hearing, and I know you can make a motion for dismissal, but the defendant needs to put in an argument. Having your legal aid lawyer turn up and say "not us!" isn't going to cut it, even in France I imagine. Your lawyer is going to have to do research, and do it well enough. And as I said before, I imagine that France's free legal counsel doesn't apply to supplying copyright law specialists to foreign nationals on the other side of the world. And there's no way I'm relying on some legal aid hack to dig me out of a copyright lawsuit. > > Whilst this is America, home of the bullshit lawsuit, I contend that > > something substantively similar could happen basically anywhere. It > > happened in Australia, too, again around the issue of spam, and I think > > there's been a similar case or two in Europe somewhere. > > Well, the law of australia and US are mostly similar, are they not ? Yeah, but the world's becoming a more homogeneous place all the time. > > > Well, but a tentative to repeteadly harass using lawsuits will probably > > > not be > > > missed by a judge. > > > > s/tentative/tendency/? Possibly not, but it's not hard to identify this > > sort of thing if the suits don't come before the same judge. > > No, a try would be more like it ? Also, since the defendor has at least the > chance of an initial reply, he could very well mention other suits, or tries The defendant needs to research those attempted cases, assuming they weren't sealed or otherwise hidden from general view, and the research will cost money. Furthermore, I don't see any reason why a judge would necessarily be willing to hear about other (unrelated) cases when deciding this one. > of suits, and i thougt there were something about a suit once tried or > dismissed, you cannot simply go to another judge and try again. Dismissal with prejudice precludes the same case being brought against the same defendant, and losing a case at trial does the same, but causing the defendant to spend lots of money and then giving the suit away is possible. Also, I'd consider it more likely that a harassing copyright holder would probably go after different parties each time, which is the basis under which I've been attacking this issue. - Matt
Re: your mail
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:16:22PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > > > > Also, in any sane legal > > > > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the > > > > licence, > > > > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what > > > > they > > > > get. > > > > > > In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going > > > on from both sides before he even considers dismissing the case. That > > > > Ok, but we are in the case where the defendor is innocent, right ? > > So? The cost of defending against the suit is still considerable. And > there is no guarantee of being awarded costs even for a frivolous lawsuit, > let alone collecting. Well, the cost would be mostly the same, but i answered that elsewhere to you. > > > means that the user has to hire a French lawyer to write a response to > > > the statement of cause. Unless the judges are omniscient, that's what > > > has to happen. > > > > What exactly is stopping him from hiring a local lawyer to write the > > statement > > and sent it per letter to the judge, and how will it differ from the case > > where the court of venue is local to him ? The choice of law is the french > > law > > in both case. > > It's still very costly. Here's an example from the US: > http://mainsleazespam.com/law/ema.html Yeah, but cost in the US and cost elsewhere may not be comparable. And we have free legal counsel here. And an instruction judge, which mean that you have to somehow convince the judge of the legalities of your claim before the lawsuit starts. This would not be the case in the US, i think. > Whilst this is America, home of the bullshit lawsuit, I contend that > something substantively similar could happen basically anywhere. It > happened in Australia, too, again around the issue of spam, and I think > there's been a similar case or two in Europe somewhere. Well, the law of australia and US are mostly similar, are they not ? > > > And let's be honest; a court case may look obvious to us, but few > > > judges have ever had a case where an open-sourceish license is > > > > Well, but a tentative to repeteadly harass using lawsuits will probably not > > be > > missed by a judge. > > s/tentative/tendency/? Possibly not, but it's not hard to identify this > sort of thing if the suits don't come before the same judge. No, a try would be more like it ? Also, since the defendor has at least the chance of an initial reply, he could very well mention other suits, or tries of suits, and i thougt there were something about a suit once tried or dismissed, you cannot simply go to another judge and try again. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: your mail
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:16:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > > > Also, in any sane legal > > > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the > > > licence, > > > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what > > > they > > > get. > > > > In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going > > on from both sides before he even considers dismissing the case. That > > Ok, but we are in the case where the defendor is innocent, right ? So? The cost of defending against the suit is still considerable. And there is no guarantee of being awarded costs even for a frivolous lawsuit, let alone collecting. > > means that the user has to hire a French lawyer to write a response to > > the statement of cause. Unless the judges are omniscient, that's what > > has to happen. > > What exactly is stopping him from hiring a local lawyer to write the statement > and sent it per letter to the judge, and how will it differ from the case > where the court of venue is local to him ? The choice of law is the french law > in both case. It's still very costly. Here's an example from the US: http://mainsleazespam.com/law/ema.html Whilst this is America, home of the bullshit lawsuit, I contend that something substantively similar could happen basically anywhere. It happened in Australia, too, again around the issue of spam, and I think there's been a similar case or two in Europe somewhere. > > And let's be honest; a court case may look obvious to us, but few > > judges have ever had a case where an open-sourceish license is > > Well, but a tentative to repeteadly harass using lawsuits will probably not be > missed by a judge. s/tentative/tendency/? Possibly not, but it's not hard to identify this sort of thing if the suits don't come before the same judge. - Matt
Re: your mail
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:31:02PM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > > Also, in any sane legal > > system, it should only affect those users who willingly violate the licence, > > even after a cease-and-desist letter, and i would say they deserve what they > > get. > > In any sane legal system, the judge is going to find out what's going > on from both sides before he even considers dismissing the case. That Ok, but we are in the case where the defendor is innocent, right ? > means that the user has to hire a French lawyer to write a response to > the statement of cause. Unless the judges are omniscient, that's what > has to happen. What exactly is stopping him from hiring a local lawyer to write the statement and sent it per letter to the judge, and how will it differ from the case where the court of venue is local to him ? The choice of law is the french law in both case. > And let's be honest; a court case may look obvious to us, but few > judges have ever had a case where an open-sourceish license is Well, but a tentative to repeteadly harass using lawsuits will probably not be missed by a judge. > involved, and not many more are familiar with programming and the > free software community. The judge may need some time to get up > to speed. Well, it may be, but upstream has to frame the accusation, and you get at least a chance to send a letter defending yourself before it goes in full motion. > > In the ocaml case, the upstream authors being a small team of 6-10 people > > from the academic world, and wanting to be as unbothered as possible in > > all these issues, also may fear the violation of the ocaml licence by > > entities such as sun or microsoft, which would gain from the ocaml > > technology in both java and C#, > > I understand they fear the use of OCaml code in any non-functional > programming system, Free or not. In any case, neither Sun or Microsoft > is probably going to want to copy code from OCaml; they want to copy > ideas. And that is not protected by copyright law. Point taken. > > fear that a court of venue in the US may render any chance of getting > > justice void, given the money governed US legal system. > > Somehow, I am left unconcerned by the irrational fears of bigots. I'm Well, is it or is it not so ? In all the software lawsuits i hear about, including those music-industry against teenage childs, the amount of money available plays an immediate role in the possibility to defend oneself. If that is not so, its their own fault they publicize it in that way. > sure Americans could equally rational worry that a court of venue in > France may render any chance of getting justice void, giving the fact > they are Americans. I doubt the USians leaving in france would feel the same though. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Corel (was Re: your mail)
Fredrick Paul Eisele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ben Pfaff wrote: > > Jeff Noxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Although I certainly don't mind the suggestion of Corel getting one >(many?) developer accounts, I'm not certain I like the idea of voting >rights or access to -private... Just my $0.02. > > What's to stop individual Corelers from just becoming full-fledged > developers like any other developers? AFAIK we don't have any rules > against developers paid for by commercial interests, it's just that it > hasn't happened up to this point. Err, Um, So what do most developers do for money? [...I'm paid by a company...] Yes; do they pay you to work on Debian? My point is that that's rare, if not unheard of.
Re: Corel (was Re: your mail)
Ben Pfaff wrote: > > Jeff Noxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Although I certainly don't mind the suggestion of Corel getting one >(many?) developer accounts, I'm not certain I like the idea of voting >rights or access to -private... Just my $0.02. > > What's to stop individual Corelers from just becoming full-fledged > developers like any other developers? AFAIK we don't have any rules > against developers paid for by commercial interests, it's just that it > hasn't happened up to this point. Err, Um, So what do most developers do for money? Are they/you all independently wealthy or is software development just a hobby and you all have "real" jobs. Personally, I work for a "commercial interest". I thought that the rule was that I follow the letter and spirit of the Debian Social Contract and that would be sufficient. Also, as companies typically have official policies I have taken some time to make sure that they are not in conflict with the Social Contract, nonetheless, I am not a lawyer and feel uneasy about this. Should I post my employers policies to "Debian Legal"? I did discuss my membership with my employer before becoming a maintainer, and they had no problems. I do agree that maybe the voting rules may need to be modified but how do you compute dedication to the Social Contract ;-)
