2010/7/2 Folderol <folderol@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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 > And it wasn't Linus himself who fought back, but IBM. -Giuseppe _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
