Re: 'Nuther voluntary dismissal contemplated

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Actually, I am with Terekhov on that one.  The technical details of the
>> underlying traffic don't change the legal nature of who makes available
>> something that much.
>
> But who says that "making available" is violating copyright at all?
> Some courts have found that it isn't.

Uh, they found that it is not a violation if nobody makes use of the
opportunity.

> We may be in a situation where the only person who is guilty of
> violating the GPL is the person who requests the download!

Are we still talking about the software distributed as part of the
routers?

> You're agreeing with Terekhov because you would like all manner of
> things which may not be copyright violations to be included under
> copyright and thus the GPL; recall the discussion we had a while ago
> about derivative works and dynamic linking.

I suggest you don't make statements about my motives.  I consider myself
better qualified for that.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum