METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS v. GROKSTER

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Thu, 1 May 2003, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> Second, the Court implied that an additional reason why proprietary software
> distributors could not be held contributorily liable is due to its presumed
> inability to modify the software in a manner similar to what was required in
> Napster to decrease or eliminate infringing uses of the p2p software. This
> conclusion is at odds with the open source software developement model,
> where licensees may become distributors of software who do have access to
> source code and, therefore, could not claim a lack of access to source code.

Actually, isn't it the other way around?  If I give you, either an
end-user *or* a redistributor, a P2P app with source, there's no way I can
"decrease or eliminate infringing uses of the p2p software", because any
DRM system I put in the app can be defanged.

	Brian

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3