[oclug] Canadian LUGs and SCO
bb at L8R.net
Sat Jul 26 17:31:38 EDT 2003
On 26 Jul 2003 17:23:54 -0400
Rod Giffin <rod at giffinscientific.com> wrote:
> 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.
Rod, I hate to say this, but you obviously don't understand the
application of law. Simply reading a law does not give you an
understanding of how that law will be used, the extenuating
circumstances that occur during a supposed breach of that law, and how a
judge and court will use this in a determination.
I have repetitively tried to enlighten you on how law is applied, yet you
keep pointing to paragraphs of text which are useless without a framework
to apply them in. Until you start to accept and look at that framework,
you will continue to make improper determinations like you have so clearly
done. Again, a law is not applied by itself, but is applied in an entire
legal framework that has been around for centuries upon centuries.
I suggest you rethink your position after looking at Copyright law in a
wider scope, with the inclusion of the rest of the US legal system.
You are right though, this has probably moved into an off list matter.
More information about the OCLUG