| |||||||||||||
DMCADMCAPosted Dec 7, 2011 7:18 UTC (Wed) by jku (subscriber, #42379)In reply to: DMCA by ewan Parent article: C|Net Download.Com accused of bundling Nmap with malware Fyodor doesn't seem to agree with you. I have no idea how that would work but he quite clearly believes the clarifications are part of the license.
(Log in to post comments)
DMCA Posted Dec 7, 2011 11:03 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
The problem is that "derivative work" is NOT a legally clear term.
So this "clarification" may not stand up in a court of law, but it places distributors on clear notice as to the copyright holder's understanding of the law.
If a term is legally ambiguous, but the defendant knew up-front the interpretation the plaintiff placed on it, then the defendant cannot argue "innocent mistake". They *have* to argue "plaintiff is wrong", which is a lot harder. The "as I understand the law" defence is a lot harder if the plaintiff says "but I told you that's not the way I understand it".
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||