On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 10:58:36PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > > Since when does intention have anything to do with breaking the law? > > Negligence is also a crime. > > Categorically, no. There is such a thing as "criminal negligence" but it > exists within specific legal contexts, typically those associatied with > guardianship (health or day care workers, parents, etc.) > > Failure to zealously prosecute one's every possible avenue of recourse in > enforcing one's own copyright is not an offense under U.S. law, nor, as far > as I know, anywhere else.
But it MAY neutralize the copyright, and you should know this. Neutralizing IP fits under the aegis of criminal negligence: the guardianship of salable property is usually sufficent to trigger the criminal statute. > > The FSF is violating the GPL when they make binaries such as /bin/ls > > downloadable without the downloading of the GPL. > > This is impossible for FSF-copyrighted software. A copyright holder cannot > violate the license on his own work. True, but can the FSF hold others to a standard that they do not practice? > > Negligence is no excuse. > > Ignorance of the law is not either. What's yours? Widespread ignorance of the law is. Name one binary packaging system that always includes the GPL when necessary. Five years without a correct implementation is evidence of widespread ignorance or a changing playing field, take your choice. > -- Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer: "My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that." Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
