On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:53:06 -0700 Ken Restivo <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:19:07AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils Hammerfest <nils@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Now what happens? Of course the intial release was wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived works and their derived works? > > > > there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws > > (which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there > > are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would > > immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the > > distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability. there > > are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would. > > > > This sounds similar to the Novell/SCO lawsuit against Linux some years ago. > > Novell claimed that there were Unix headers in Linux, thus they owned Linux. > > As I recall, Linus fought it and won the suit. > > -ken You've got that arse about face. Novel has actually been the 'good guy' here - see http://www.Groklaw.net and look for SCO in the side bar. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
