From:	Allison Randal	Date:	Sat Apr 29 13:58:18 2006
Subject:	Re: Does masquerading conflict with artistic control?

On Apr 28, 2006, at 16:45, Charles Bailey wrote:
> On 4/28/06, Allison Randal <allison@wgz.org> wrote: On Apr 26,  
> 2006, at 21:45, Charles Bailey wrote:
>
>> If someone were maliciously installing hacked versions of Perl on
>> people's machines against their will, that would fall into a
>> completely different legal category, and isn't something for a
>> license to address.
>
> IANAL, but I don't think this is necessarily true.  If you click  
> 'OK' when the Sony DRM installer asks, the fact that it sneaks in a  
> buggy rootkit doesn't put it into a different legal category than  
> if it installed a well-designed userspace agent.

I meant different in the sense that malicious hacking is criminal  
behavior even ignoring any question of license, and it's more  
appropriate to deal with the problem there. (The Sony DRM installer  
is yet another different case.)


Another good place to deal with the problem is through trust  
relationships. Sites like SourceForge are useful because they collect  
a bunch of software together, but they're also useful because you can  
see other users' comments on the software, and because SF has a  
policy of removing malicious software.

> Since the AL explicitly grants anyone the right to distribute the  
> Package, as long as they say they're doing it, and implicitly (by  
> making 4(b) one of several options) grants the right to represent  
> whatever you distribute as the Package, I'm not sure how trademark  
> helps you.

Think of it like the Apple logo on the back of an iPod. It's a sign  
of a reliable source. If someone shipped something that looks like an  
iPod without the logo, you'd know it wasn't really an iPod, and you  
wouldn't trust it as much. If someone put the logo on cheap knock- 
offs without Apple's permission (pretending to be the real thing),  
Apple can make them stop. Apple doesn't have the right to prevent  
people from making small, rectangular, white MP3 players, but the  
trademark gives them a tool to help keep their users from getting  
tricked by fakes.

> My only point was that the warranty the AL presumably meant to  
> disclaim was an "expressed" warranty (i.e. one stated), rather than  
> an "express" warranty ( i.e. a quick one).  The error is so common,  
> though, that I expect "express warranty" is now considered as a  
> term of art identical in meaning to "expressed warranty".  Again, a  
> trivium.

Ah, right, then I misunderstood the comment. Actually, "express" as  
an adjective means "stated" too. As in "express wish" or "express  
purpose". Not common in modern colloquial usage, but legal language  
tends to hang on to older meanings longer. (The etymology of  
"express" is fascinating, and hinges around people thinking "express  
train" meant it was fast, when it really meant the train was  
dedicated to a special purpose. Eventually "fast" became the primary  
meaning.)

Allison