The Wanderer writes:
> I am not on the inside of these things, certainly, but I have kept my
> eyes open from the outside, and I am not aware of there being any
> mechanism for removing something root-and-branch - across all affected
> versions, however far back those may stretch - from these
On Monday, January 31, 2022 12:32:18 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote:
...
> A lawyer cannot make that risk trade-off decision for us. We'll have to
> make it as a project. But my hope would be that they could help put a
> number on the likely legal cost in the worst-case scenario and provide
> some
On 2022-01-31 at 12:32, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
>
>> Even if a lawyer says A, it doesn't buy us anything if J Robert DD
>> gets sued and the judge says B, or "not A".
>
> Yes, a legal opinion cannot fully resolve the question,
> unfortunately, since it's a risk judgment.
On 1/31/22 10:35, Pirate Praveen wrote:
On തി, ജനു 31 2022 at 10:07:32 രാവിലെ +0100 +0100, Stephan Lachnit
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 8:35 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
I do think that the amount of effort that the project puts into this
pre-screening is of sufficiently high magnitude that
Stephan Lachnit writes:
> If I compare how other mediums handle copyright violations, most
> services have a "file a claim infringed copyright here" button on their
> site (e.g. YouTube). For example, we could write a DMCA policy like
> e.g. Github [2], hyperlink in the footer of all our
Marc Haber writes:
> Even if a lawyer says A, it doesn't buy us anything if J Robert DD gets
> sued and the judge says B, or "not A".
Yes, a legal opinion cannot fully resolve the question, unfortunately,
since it's a risk judgment. Copyright law is murky enough that it's
unlikely that any
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:05 PM Marc Haber
wrote:
> >Looking at the last financial numbers I found [1], we have at least
> >~750k USD we could use for this purpose. I don't really know how
> >expensive lawyers are, but I doubt that this would cost more than 10k.
> >Heck, we could even hire
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 10:07:32 +0100, Stephan Lachnit
wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 8:35 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do think that the amount of effort that the project puts into this
>> pre-screening is of sufficiently high magnitude that it would be worth
>> paying a lawyer for a legal opinion
Hey Russ
On 2022/01/30 21:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
Francesco Poli writes:
I thought the basis was the fact that copyright and licensing bugs may
have bad legal consequences (lawsuits against the Project for
distributing legally undistributable packages, things like that), while
technical bugs
Hey Russ
On 2022/01/30 21:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
Francesco Poli writes:
I thought the basis was the fact that copyright and licensing bugs may
have bad legal consequences (lawsuits against the Project for
distributing legally undistributable packages, things like that), while
technical bugs
On തി, ജനു 31 2022 at 10:07:32 രാവിലെ +0100
+0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 8:35 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
I do think that the amount of effort that the project puts into this
pre-screening is of sufficiently high magnitude that it would be
worth
paying a lawyer
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 8:35 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I do think that the amount of effort that the project puts into this
> pre-screening is of sufficiently high magnitude that it would be worth
> paying a lawyer for a legal opinion about whether or not we need to do
> it. The savings to the
Francesco Poli writes:
> I thought the basis was the fact that copyright and licensing bugs may
> have bad legal consequences (lawsuits against the Project for
> distributing legally undistributable packages, things like that), while
> technical bugs do not cause issues with lawyers and are, in
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 07:38:10 +0100 Andreas Tille wrote:
> Am Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:45:11PM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
[...]
> > The question, which keeps being raised in part
> > because I don't think it's gotten a good answer, is what the basis is for
> > treating copyright and licensing bugs
Andreas Tille writes:
...
> May be some intermediate step would be to not hide packages in NEW queue
> but exposing them as an apt source. If I'm correct this is not the case
> since it had certain legal consequences for the project if code with
> certain non-free licenses would be downloadable
Am Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 01:45:11PM -0800 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > I just don't think the solution is to ignore copyright or licensing
> > statements.
>
> That's not the goal. The question, which keeps being raised in part
> because I don't think it's gotten a good
16 matches
Mail list logo
