On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Fredric <ken...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500
> R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Then I'm quite confused as to why people seem to be extremely attentive to
>> copyright infringement (besides an immediate payout). In the US they cite
>> the reasoning I gave, from memory.
>>
>> Maybe that was for trademarks?
>
> This is one of those problems where the nebulous term "IP" has infected
> our thinking.
>
> Yes, US is very *copyright* infringement zealous.
>
> But Trademark and Copyright are very different beasts.
>
> Trademarks (read: brands, company names, company symbols, etc) do
> expire much shorter, but that's due to other reasons. Namely, that if
> your company ceases to be doing business for 10 years, nobody is harmed
> by people using a name of a company that doesn't exist, because
> "Trademark protection" is largely a device to prevent competitors
> claiming they're you, and to prevent competitors selling products
> claiming you made them.
>
> Copyright (read: the right to publish, distribute, and sell) has a much
> longer life as the results of that can be inheritable, eg: profits from
> sale copyrighted works can go towards the estate of the author of those
> works after the death of that author.
>
> There are documented *exceptions* to this, but they don't apply to us
> as they apply to public institutions such as archives and libraries.
>
> And there are exceptions in cases of "fair use", which Gentoo does not
> fall under.
>
> So, even though it is true that copyright expires, copy right expiry
> dates are currently such that most juristictions don't have any
> software that could conceivably exist that expires.
>
> If the expiry period is 50 years, and there's no software in
> circulation older than 30, its kindof a moot point to argue software
> that is less than 10 years old might have expired.
>
There's nothing in this though that says a copyright couldn't be
weakened by failure to enforce claims against infringers. However, it
happens that copyright law allows selective enforcement.
>> >> Sir, please see my above comment about building ballistic missiles.
>> >> It may be important for the Gentoo Foundation to add a disclaimer
>> >> similar to the one I mentioned. I would hate for the Foundation or
>> >> any of its administrators or contributors to be found guilty of
>> >> aiding and abetting terrorists.
>> >
>> > Yeah. Stop trolling, please.
>> >
>>
>> I am being completely serious. You can find such a clause in the iTunes
>> license.
>>
>> If it seems ridiculous please reconsider the subject in question.
>
> I'm not sure how enforceable that clause is as a License.
>
> As a Warranty, sure.
>
The point isn't to be practically enforceable. If someone put their
mind to using iTunes to make an ICBM I'm sure no one could stop them.
The point is that Apple has now disclaimed liability for terrorist
acts associated with iTunes in a very legally important way, which I
believe is related to export restrictions (the item of interest likely
being the cryptography portions of the digital restrictions management
code).
> "if you use it for this, don't blame us if bad things happen, we told
> you not to"
>
There's a myriad of laws that duplicate the intent of the basic laws
against property damage and taking life.
> Also, those are typically things that fall under "National Laws" and it
> doesn't really make sense to have to explicitly articulate in a
> software license that its intended use is to be done within the scope
> of your local governing laws.
>
> You're bound to follow local law regardless of whether you accept or
> reject a given license. So, its kinda moot.
>
It is my understanding that this realization supports the view that
the link should be left in. It's up to the user of the software, radio
broadcasting kit, car, etc, to use the item in a responsible manner.
I am worried about ceding rights where it is not necessary to do so. A
good analogue to the situation at hand is crowdfunded electronics
projects that try to be FCC compliant, or delay shipping to obtain FCC
compliance. They don't need to. They're almost always a product not
intended for end users or an incomplete product. This makes me afraid,
sir, because it may be the case in the future I can not produce any
electronic equipment on my own.
Likewise, being unable to tell someone where to download something is
another situation that makes me afraid.
> If your government goes and uses your software for military
> applications despite your license saying "don't", I'm not really sure
> you'll have much in the way of recourse.
>
I'm pretty sure it would be one of the rare times, at least in the US,
that the government does not have sovereign immunity.
> If it was that simple I'd just start putting license terms that
> prohibits people from using software I wrote as part of a state
> approved mass surveillance platform....
>
If you did this the military would abide by your license. They'd just
hire someone else to write the software in your stead.
Personally, sir, I am glad that mass surveillance is happening. My
government tells me it is a good thing and that it protects me. My
government is made of good, hardworking, honest people. I have
conversed with some Gentoo users who have said that I should suspect
my government but I am not sure how to do that. In any case, the mass
surveillance programs are under the control of the military. The
military typically respects the law, and I would not mind it if they
used something that I had created. I would be proud that I was able to
help my country by helping the people who protect it.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:10:54 -0500
> Gordon Pettey <petteyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And this is all irrelevant since the copyright applies to the
>> software, not the location you obtain it from. Nobody commits
>> copyright infringement by buying a used book from their neighbour
>> instead of buying it at Half Price Books.
>> Distribution licenses are another thing, but if the original SRC_URI
>> from the ebuild wasn't RESTICT="fetch", what makes anybody think that
>> would suddenly change with a new SRC_URI?
>
> Are you a lawyer, and does this constitute legal advice? I ask, because
> the lawyers I've spoken to about a similar issue seemed to think it
> wasn't that simple.
>
If normal people can not interpret the law, what good is it? Moreover
what morally or ethically consistent claim would anyone have against
me for breaking laws I do not understand and that may be impossible to
comprehend?
Legality and morality are separate things, but most court systems like
to at least pretend they are based on some kind of system of moral
ethics.
In any case it is my understanding that the issue is that simple. It's
the reason torrents and magnet links exist, and why there are no legal
claims possible against websites which host magnet links.
List, if I am wrong, please let me know. I do not mean to make a
nuisance of myself. I am simply not very smart, but I do want to see
Gentoo succeed as a project.
Respectfully,
R0b0t1
