On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 12:09:12AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On 5/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Logically, the process used here is more complex than that used by > > > gunzip, but effect is similar. > > > > If nothing else, 17 USC 117 and dynamic linking absolutely protect you > > from this theory of infringement in the US. Many jurisdictions are > > said to have equivalents. IANAL, etc. > > This "absolute protection" did not seem to protect Napster, nor did > the home recording act.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Napster's *primary function* was to facilitate the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. That is clearly not the case with Debian. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
