METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS v. GROKSTER

[Greg Pomerantz]

> Precisely! That's one very good reason why the court's distinction is
> troubling; the court opines that access to source code means the
> distributor/licensee CAN eliminate infringing uses of the p2p software.
> This view is not only wrong, but it has adverse implications for open
> source, but not proprietary, closed, locked up, software
> distributors/licensees.

Please see my other post, but I don't believe the court made any such
distinction between Grokster, a distributor of licensed, proprietary
software and StreamCast/Morpheus, a developer and distributor of a
Gnutella client. In both cases, the court said there was no obligation
for the defendant to modify their software so as to restrict the illegal
activities of end users.

Greg

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