On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:49:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Actually, I have made that claim. I've even shown the commands > to issue to obtain evidence that we do so. > > Mind you, this is a collective work, and we will also distribute the > pieces individually. But "we sometimes don't distribute the work" > is not equivalent to "we do not distribute the work".
The work you are speaking of does not exist in our archives, as far as I can tell. It can only be built on a user's machine. The resulting work would not be distributable. > > > If not, what are we discussing? > > > > I thought we were discussing whether we can be held liable for the illegal > > actions of our users. > > I believe the answer to that question depends on whether we can be > shown to have some responsibility for those actions of our users. You seem to be saying that if we make it easy for a user to do something which is completely legal (i.e. compile a package with SSL support) then we can somehow be held responsible for any and all subsequent illegal actions that the user takes with respect to the package (such as distribution). > > > 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. > > In what way is my understanding wrong? > > If I fire a gun, am I absolved of responsibiility for damage done by > that bullet? > > If I hire an assassin, am I absolved of responsibility for choices > made by this hit man? You're making completely ridiculous analogies. If you want to be taken seriously, you should try to stay on point. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
