On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 21:01, tcleary2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > When I was a Police Officer in the U.K. the definition of Theft was ( and > had been for a LONG time ): > > "Dishonestly obtains the property of another with the intent to > permanently deprive them of it." > > Problem: Cisco still have the code - offence not complete, therefore > prosecution not possible. Excellent arguments. Let me restate. The spirit & intent of Fair Use Doctrine applies to materials that are publicly accessible. In college I did not have to mark up the expensive music scores I bought as I could make copies and not violate the copyright. I could photocopy scores from the library to study. Fair Use is intended to make sure copyright does not unduly restrict the use of materials with copyright in an academic orr educational context. A teacher may photocopy parts of a work to hand out in a lecture. Fair Use has nothing to do with penetrating Cisco's networks and copying the source to 12.3 IOS an later distribution. Fair Use Doctrine is about academic freedom, not commercial proprietary IP which only approved persons may posses. Fair Use keeps information and materials the were already very accessible the same. It is an incorrect argument to claim Fair Use here because IOS source was never legally assessable to the general public. To suggest using it, as such, is a perversion of the spirit and intent of Fair Use Doctrine. -- James H. Edwards Routing and Security Administrator At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa jamesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx noc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part