[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL traitor !
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: GPL traitor ! |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:44:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Sigh. A program is not a legally responsible entity. The responsible
>> party is the _writer_ of the program. I can't push away the
>> responsibility about what a program of mine does to somebody else.
>>
>> Computer viruses are _exclusively_ executed by people different from the
>> virus author, on thousands of computers. Does it make _them_ reponsible
>> for what their computers do? Does it make the infected _programs_
>> responsible? Does it make the _computers_ responsible? Does it make
>> the _virus_ responsible?
>>
>> No, the responsible party is the virus _author_. What happens is a
>> consequence of what _he_ did and intended.
>
> The reason for that is the law:
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html>
> (5)(A)(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
> information, code, or command, and as a result of such
> conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization,
> to a protected computer;
>
> Virus writers did not automatically become criminals. The law needed
> to be amended to make them so. Barring such a special law, actions
> done by a computer program are the responsibility of the person who
> causes that program to run.
Yes, and the virus author is the one who _causes_ the program to run.
That the virus action is set up to be _triggered_ unwittingly by other
parties does not make the _triggering_ party responsible.
The laws are not there to figure out the responsibility, they are there
for figuring out appropriate _criminal_ punishments. Virus writers were
(and still are) _accountable_ for the damage they cause. But previous
to these laws, they need not expect a jail sentence (except debtors'
jail). Yes, there _were_ jailings, but judges were straining for laws
to apply. And those worked primarily with military/state computers.
> In any case, the actions taken by a computer pursuant to readying a
> dynamically loaded library for execution are explicitly defined as not
> infringing by US copyright law and are permitted by the GPL with no
> restriction.
We are talking about the actions taken by the computer programmer
pursuant to loading and using a dynamically loaded library as an
integral part of the executing program. Not about the computer. A
computer is not a legally responsible entity.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: GPL traitor !, (continued)
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/14
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/14
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, jellybean stonerfish, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/16
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/16
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/16
- Re: GPL traitor !, Andrew Halliwell, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/15
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/16
- Re: GPL traitor !, Andrew Halliwell, 2009/06/16
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/16
- Re: GPL traitor !, David Kastrup, 2009/06/16