On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:04:09PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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?
Are you claiming that we are distributing such a work? > If not, what are we discussing? I thought we were discussing whether we can be held liable for the illegal actions of our users. > > 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. IMO, you understand it wrongly. But we can agree to disagree. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
