On Sunday 06 June 2004 1:58 pm, Tom Diehl wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Paul Duffy wrote: > > On Sunday 06 Jun 2004 17:00, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > > > Because you insist on using proprietary, encumbered technologies that > > > would make RedHat vulnerable to legal action if they distributed them. > > > > As they do in the kernel source they provide. > > Think binaries. That is what matters. Do not ask me why I am not a lawyer. The courts have been somewhat consistently considering source code as protected by free speech, but not binaries. The case that established this was the source code for RSA. You could email the source code, print it on t-shits (as many did), whatever. Once you type it in and compile it, it is "munitions" (strong encryption falls under the munitions laws in the US). To answer the question someone posed later about why the US laws prevail and out-of-the-US users can't get it, two answers: - Many countries have patent/trademark/extradition/etc agreements with the US - REALLY, REALY good lawyers and fat pockets don't need the law to be on their side. > Ummm, lets see NTFS source is closed. In the USA Reverse engineering is > illegal (Think DMCA). Red Hat is a USA based Corporation, therefore subject > to the laws of the USA. This is also true. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DDDD David Kramer david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://thekramers.net DK KD DKK D Love to stay. Can't. Have to go. Kiss kiss, love love, bye. DK KD DDDD J'Kar
