Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com): > Because grsecurity.net's stated policy (which could also be called > "threat") has created a chilling effect upon such redistribution. IMO that > is enough to be actionable.
Show me the caselaw, please. 'Chilling effect' is indeed a concept in law, but no actual tort by that name exists. But if you claim that copyright violation can be found by causing exercise of a copyright-covered right have consequences that are within a party's rights to visit upon the rights-user -- such as Spengler's firm ending a business relationship -- then I would hope you can show me caselaw where a judge so ruled. Spengler deciding no longer to do business with a redistributor doesn't prevent that party from carrying out redistribution. It just means it has lawful real-world consequences the redistributor might not like. Your calling that a 'chilling effect' doesn't make it tortious. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
