From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271753AbTGXWhN (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:37:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271755AbTGXWhN (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:37:13 -0400 Received: from mail3.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.7]:15807 "HELO heather-ng.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S271753AbTGXWhK (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:37:10 -0400 X-Sender-Authentification: SMTPafterPOP by from 217.64.64.14 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:52:16 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Larry McVoy Cc: ianh@iahastie.clara.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux Message-Id: <20030725005216.437287a0.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030724172225.GH12647@work.bitmover.com> References: <1058807414.513.4.camel@sunshine> <20030724160146.GF12647@work.bitmover.com> <200307241752.46140.ianh@iahastie.local.net> <20030724172225.GH12647@work.bitmover.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:22:25 -0700 Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:52:44PM +0100, Ian Hastie wrote: > > There is a difference between getting something knowing it > > to be improperly obtained and believing it to be the property of the > > supplier. Just to follow your example, you buy a second hand disc or > > computer. When you hook it up you find a load of illegal MP3s. If what > > you say is correct you'd be guilty of theft, or at the very least copyright > > > > infringement. > > You bet you would. Unless you could make a case that the seller sold you > the system with legal rights to that data, and that case would have to > include some plausible fee for the data, then the judge would say "there > is no free lunch son, if the deal looked too good to be true, it was and > you saying you didn't know isn't an excuse". Sorry, Larry, but we live in the post-dot.com age and all have experienced astonishing business models where virtually everything was handed to the "customer" for free. I even know a business model where you get a free _car_, have to pay nothing and it _works_ for the company. So your argument is indeed one of the "unkowning" type, it would take me about 10 minutes to fundamentally prove such a judge plain silly. Regards, Stephan