From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:00:30 -0600

alex wallis wrote:
> Well not exactly, but lets face it back in 2006 until the old voices
> were taken down completely unintentionally you were.
> So i'd say why not host the voice until the manufacturer or there
> representative asks you not to and then of course take it down. I mean
> lets face it it took the makers of the natural voices long enough to
> notice, and if a voice maker does notice and cares, there going to
> send an e mail out saying take them down, fine but that's not exactly
> going to get anyone into trouble is it if you comply.

When we were "unintentionally" breaking the law, we read the license and
did our very best to comply with its terms. We thought its terms
explicitly granted us permission to do what we did. It turned out we
misunderstood the license.

What you're suggesting is "ignore the license, you shouldn't worry about
it until they complain" which is something entirely different. They
don't have to give warning. They can take someone to court instead.
Warning emails are if they feel like being nice, and in the case of the
other one we thought we weren't doing anything wrong. Knowingly doing
something wrong (which would be the case if we choose not to check the
license status) puts us in a much more vulnerable position right at the
start.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
FAQ: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GeneralFAQ
Etiquette: http://www.rockbox.org/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2008-11-19