linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47AB2FA1.3020905@davidnewall.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:49:45 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only

Alan Cox wrote:
>> No, I'm right.  The word "proof" is appropriate in context.  (I write in
>> plain English, not Legalese.)  I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean
>> "mathematically certain."  Anybody who pretends that proof in court
>> means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive.
>>     
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong despite your desperate attempts to reinterpret
> your own comments. The civil law is "balance of probability". Those are
> the precise words used. As it is a dispute between two civil parties with
> no assumed right or wrong it is a matter of which interpretation is most
> likely "proof" doesn't come into it whatever version of proof you want to
> pick this email.
>
> "burden of proof" is a specific term with a specific meaning in law.
>   

I've had this argument before.  The conclusion is that spiteful people
insist on using the legal meaning for words which have explicitly been
said using plain English.  If you are spiteful, then by all means rant
about legal terms, but do so knowing that everybody understand what I mean.

Even in civil matters, it is necessary for the appellant to present a
case and the respondent may simply pick holes in it.

Further, don't forget that copyright violation is a criminal matter in
some jurisdictions.  I it is so in Australia, and attracts penalties
that include imprisonment.  In Australia, and I wonder if it isn't so in
USA, the legal interpretation that you so keenly insist upon, must
therefore apply.

I shall not engage in further debate about what the legal meaning is of
plain English terms.  It's a stupid argument suitable only for stupid
people.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/