[oclug] Canadian LUGs and SCO
rod at giffinscientific.com
Sat Jul 26 17:23:54 EDT 2003
On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 16:20, Brad Barnett wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2003 16:07:44 -0400
> Rod Giffin <rod at giffinscientific.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 14:50, Brad Barnett wrote:
> > > You're not catching on though Rod. You can not be *tricked* into
> > > breaking*any* law, and then held liable, if you had reasonable cause
> > > to believe what you were doing is quite legal and legitimate. Linux's
> > > reputation is enough (up until this point) to show that anyone using
> > > it had the firm belief that it was GPL pure.
> > >
> > > People running Linux today have not broken any copyright laws, because
> > > _INTENT_ is a large, large part of the law, even in the US. For
> > > example, all of part 5 is void, intent was not there!
> > Section 5 does not deal with intent, unless an act of fraud was also
> > committed (eg. fraudulently removing or replacing a copyright notice.)
> > Section 5 also specifies that if there is intent, that a breach of
> > copyright is also an offense (para 506) under 2319 of Title 18... i.e. a
> > criminal offense.
> Intent does not need to be written into law. Intent is used in the
> application and determination of law.
Not so. You said that "all of part 5 is void if intent was not there."
I simply indicated above that is not the case, that if intent to breach
is proven, the matter is then criminal.
Ok, look. I could recite parts of Title 17 to you from memory, including
para 506. This is now far beyond being a discussion beneficial to
OCLUG. If you are interested in pursuing it any further, please contact
me off-list. I would be happy to assist your understanding of US
Copyright law and the regulations that accompany it in any way I can.
More information about the OCLUG