Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Broadcast 2000 removed from public access
From: Matthias Weiss (matthias_AT_austria.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Sep 11 2001 - 11:15:51 EEST
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:31:21PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> it also strikes me as mostly bullshit, though i'd want to speak to a
> lawyer before concluding that completely. GPL'ed software is almost
> universally made available with no warranty. as a post on slashdot
> points out, Microsoft could be sued up the wazoo if it weren't for its
> "no warranty" clause, and it never has been. why broadcast2000 would
> be any different, given its similarly worded no-warranty clause, i
> don't know. the key question for a lawyer would be how much it would
> cost to establish the validity of the no-warranty clause.
There is a link in the discussion on this slashdot article to a story
to www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/19245.html
It seems to me that those hackers put quite a lot of money in this
project and hoped desperately to make some revenue. I could imagine
that they made some promises for their hardware/software product in
order to get customers...
Well I admit this is just speculation...
>
> as for fears about IP infringement, thats a different story
> altogether, and a lot more justified in the current climate. i just
> hope that i can take on any such challenge if it comes toward ardour
> ... i intend to try.
In germany an association was founded by a group of lawyers to help
clearing legal issues for free software, if someone is interested, I'd
dig for the contact.
I agree with you, that if there is a realistic chance to stand up against
this threat it should be taken though this is also a question of money
( so far with "everyone has equal rights" ). A promising approach seems
to be the case "Felten vs. RIAA", where it was reported that the RIAA
is getting seriously troubled about that case.
matthias
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Sep 11 2001 - 11:20:28 EEST