[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest 2003] V #233
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss] Re: [dvd-discuss digest 2003] V #233
- From: "Rares Marian" <rmarian(at)linuxmail.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:04:06 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeme A Brelin <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] W32.Klez.H infection on of our group member's PC
But DAMN will I be happy when we have a truly Free Software kernel and I
don't have to use Linux anymore. (Does anyone really believe that linked
binary modules IMPROVES anything and isn't just a manifestation of Linus'
Jeme A Brelin
Nah. RMS allows the LGPL and so Linus being the originator allows binary modules.
Be brave, sell your Nvidia hardware.
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 10:57:28 -0700
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
In view of the recent discussions on the w32.klem.h consider this...
Suppose someone writes a virus scanner for Unix that uses Norton Anti-Virus
definition files rather than their code. Is that copyright infringement? Theft
of trade secret? Or DMCA violation? Now I'd bet money that Symantec would haul
anybody who did that into court and try arguing all three.
A collection is copyrightable even the contents are fact, or fiction. Otherwise,
collections of couldn't be copyrighted.
Also I think it's time people stop looking at a computer like a newsstand where the owner can readily see the content. A computer is more like a condo. The owner doesn't even live in the same are as the condo and certainly cannot be expected to know what people store in their apartments much less in the drawers of their desks.
End of [dvd-discuss digest 2003] V0 #233
Now with e-mail forwarding for only US$5.95/yr
Powered by Outblaze