On 11/03/14 17:37, Adam Saunders wrote:
---------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email does not contain legal advice. This email also
does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. You should
neither take nor fail to take any action based on any information
in this email. If you have a legal issue, then retain legal counsel.
--------------------------
On 03/11/2014 01:21 PM, Tristan Santore wrote:
> On 11/03/14 17:19, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 05:11:33PM +0000, Tristan Santore wrote:
>>> Fortunately, for us people in Europe, those issues only apply
>>> indirectly.
>> If it makes you feel happy believing that, by all means proceed with
>> that belief.
>>
>> - RF
>>
> Please elaborate further. ;-}
>
> I am all ears.
>
I'm not sure, but I believe Richard is referring to the extent to
which either:
(a) Patents that read on (or may be interpreted as reading on)
RPMFusion packages have been granted in at least some European
countries, and opens up the providers of the RPMFusion packages to
potential patent infringement claims in those European countries to
which the RPMFusion is territorially connected (e.g. servers or
repository mirrors in Italy); OR
(b) The breathtaking extent to which American courts are willing to
exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over the provision of services
over the Internet. As I understand it, merely providing a service on a
website accessible to the United States (meaning no geo-IP blocking)
is enough for lots of American judges to assert the jurisdiction of
American law (including the enforcement of American patents). For
these judges, the location of the service provider and the location of
the server hosting the online service is irrelevant; OR
(c) both (a) and (b)
Of course, Richard might be referring to something else.
Best,
Adam Saunders
> Regards,
>
> Tristan
>
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal Adam,
I think we are all aware of the issues. Tom is quite right, whatever
Canonical does is way beyond the scope of this list, fact is Fedora and
Red Hat have to adhere to the Law of the Land of the resident nation.
I think Richard and I were just digressing for a bit. I think the risk
would be we turn this list into a "war of laws", which of course would
reflect the current state of affairs across the world, meaning the chaos
we all face in the FOSS community (and actually the business community
as well). Probably best to leave it at that.
Of course, it would be nice, maybe, if one day there could be legal
professionals from across Europe, the US and other parts of the world,
making up legal opinion and arguments for public reference, as to what
is permitted and what is not. Volunteers welcome!
That should most certainly be interesting for many of us.
Regards,
Tristan
--
Tristan Santore BSc MBCS
TS4523-RIPE
Network and Infrastructure Operations
InterNexusConnect
Mobile +44-78-55069812
Tristan.Santore(a)internexusconnect.net
Former Thawte Notary
(Please note: Thawte has closed its WoT programme down,
and I am therefore no longer able to accredit trust)
For Fedora related issues, please email me at:
TSantore(a)fedoraproject.org