"illegal": law and tort
Not everything that lands you in court is illegal. If there's a law passed and you violate it, that's an illegal act. If you cause someone harm, that's a tortious act. Law is a criminal matter; tort is a civil matter. Both end up in court, but the difference between civil and criminal is enormous. I got some private mail that pointed out that I didn't address the copyright issue on PGP 2.6. I'll do so here. The RSAREF-1 license doesn't apply outside US and Canada, as I recall. (And let me be explicit--I'm feeling too lazy to look it up right now.) So use of RSAREF-1 products, including PGP 2.6, in Europe is not licensed, and therefore infringes the copyright of RSADSI. Copyright infringement is a tort (a harm), not a violation of law. Saying that infringing software is "illegal" because it infringes is incorrect. Infringing software is tortious, certainly. Let's put an end to confusing tortious with illegal. This distinction makes a big difference. In the case of illegality, the government takes you to court. In the case of tort, the offended party takes you to court. Now while one could conceivably be extradited for the ITAR (criminal), one couldn't be for copyright infringement (civil). Now, if someone in Europe were to use PGP 2.6, what could RSADSI do about it? They could sue in civil court for damages. Which court? If in the USA, then their remedy is limited to what the USA civil court can order, and if the European user were to have no assets in the USA, that's pretty much the end of the remedy. If the court were in Europe, RSADSI would have to sue in a European court. Now _you_ guess what that costs. For an individual user, there's almost nothing to worry about. Eric
Now, if someone in Europe were to use PGP 2.6, what could RSADSI do about it? They could sue in civil court for damages. Which court? If in the USA, then their remedy is limited to what the USA civil court can order, and if the European user were to have no assets in the USA, that's pretty much the end of the remedy. If the court were in Europe, RSADSI would have to sue in a European court. Now _you_ guess what that costs. For an individual user, there's almost nothing to worry about. What if the European user obtains PGP 2.6 from a European site, then rips out
On Fri, 27 May 1994, Eric Hughes wrote: the RSAREF code, and makes it use Phil's original code from 2.3a, and then distributes this copy. Is there still a copyright violation on RSADSI? Is there one on MIT ? Dave
What if the European user obtains PGP 2.6 from a European site, then rips out the RSAREF code, and makes it use Phil's original code from 2.3a, and then distributes this copy. Is there still a copyright violation on RSADSI? Is there one on MIT ? re: RSADSI. Is the 2.6 work in any way derived from RSADSI property? It doesn't appear to be. There's none of the original RSADSI code and it wasn't used as template for replacement. re: MIT. There would still be copyright property of MIT in a code base as outlined, since that part was not altered. Eric
participants (2)
-
Dave Crookes -
hughes@ah.com