Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Debian has never been sued for distributing software it didn't have the
> right to distribute in its archive (despite having distributed such
> software in the past), and you are afraid of allowing DDs to download
> the content of the NEW queue?
And how do you know that the due diligence Debian shows in seeking to avoid
distribution of software in violation of copyright isn't the *reason* that
Debian has avoided being sued? Our good faith efforts to avoid infringing
copyright have the significant effect of limiting punitive damages in a
copyright suit, making it less appealing to would-be suitors.
> Has Debian even ever received a cease and desist letter from a IP
> lawyer? Under which circumstances? I am bit tired of lawyers being
> mentioned each time the NEW problems are discussed, while it seems,
> based on history, that Debian is relatively safe from legal attacks.
We *do* have legal advise regarding the implications of hosting
ftp-master.debian.org in the US and exporting software from there. While
the notification requirements for free software are greatly relaxed in
practice today, the law is still in place that would require an export
license when exporting various non-free software (specifically, certain
stuff that's not free enough to include in non-free). By allowing downloads
of unvetted software from the NEW queue, we would risk not only violating
copyright law, but also US export law.
Cf. <87ofiygrkx.fsf@tacitus.systems> for the explanation of how NEW got the
way it is (with rationale), as well as
<20010909160205.B8098@azure.humbug.org.au> on debian-private (9 Sep 2001)
and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for more information,
including references to the relevant sections of US export regulations.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: