On Thu 19 August 2004 14:35, Joerg Schilling wrote: > From: Volker Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Obviously you're on the back foot and ran out of arguments, > > otherwise you wouldn't spend a whole email on discussing a > > minor point (so I didn't check my PPS carefully enough) and > > nothing else, instead of sticking to the 2 points in question. > > And so that even you can understand it: introducing bugs is not > > a violation of the GPL. It's a right of the GPL. > > You still did not understand the problem :-( > > A program is an artwork (this is what the European Union did > write into laws).
Since both you and SuSE are in Germany, I would think that German law would apply. There are of course the Berne treaty and the EU Copyright Directive, but neither are laws. In the case of the EUCD, it is up to the member states to make local laws that implement the EUCD. Incidentally, which law are you referring to? I couldn't really find anything in the text of the EUCD. > Even though you may get the permission to modify an artwork, you > will not get the permission to create bad carricatures and call > them just "modified versions". > > The GPL requires you not to impact the original authors' > reputations, but this is what they are doing by publishing > defective variants. Which is why they stick a big notice on it that literally says that they changed it and that they may have introduced new bugs. The problem is that people don't read the notice, and then start bothering you. But can you really blame SuSE for that? What more can they do about it? Send over an employee to each buyer to explain the situation? Lourens PS: congratulations on the new mail client. It's much better. -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key
