From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 5 11:48:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04A216A4BF for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:48:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74B743FBF for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h85Im9P2007043; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:48:09 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h85Im8BP007042; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:48:08 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h85Ifpqi040719; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:41:51 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200309051841.h85Ifpqi040719@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Brett Glass In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Sep 2003 09:54:42 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20030905095147.02cbbd90@localhost> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:41:51 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:48:11 -0000 Brett Glass writes: > >I'll start worrying when there is an enforceable precedent in my > >area. > > Better watch out in that case, since the Harrison case involved > a British defendant and an American plaintiff. So, the precedent > is already international. Aaah. Now that precedent scares me not, because in his case there was _substantial_ similarity between Plaintiff's tune and Defendant's tune. This similarity may be coincidental, but it is substantial, and US case law (the BSD vs USL case for example) has already provided a clarification of how far that might go in _code_. For code to be as substantially similar in a copyright-infringing way would take a clear, overt and actionable act, IMVHO. I still fail to see where _reading_, _modifying_ or _using_ GPL'ed code is dangerous, as long as one clearly bears normal copyright issues in mind. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH