Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > In the Verizon case, Verizon kicked their butt out of court and forced
> > them to give up the right to file their silly GPL claims against
> > Verizon ever again.
> 
> Uh what?
> <URL:http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206904096>
> 
>     "As part of the settlement announced Monday, Verizon (NYSE: VZ)
>     subcontractor Actiontec Electronics must pay an undisclosed sum to
>     developers Erick Andersen and Rob Landley. It must also appoint an
>     internal officer to ensure that it's in compliance with licenses
>     governing the open source software it uses. "

Verizon isn't a party to that "settlement"[1] to begin with and the suit 
was against Verizon (that's not Actiontec), moron. As for Actiontec,

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217
                                       ^^^^^^^^

------
Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website
(http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html [actiontec.com]), I see the
following:

GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products:
Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR

The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the
MI424WR Products.

List of modules:

busybox-0.50
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz

Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the
license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's
there.

So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon?
------

Actiontec has made available the source code long before the lawsuit 
against Verizon. 

More to the point:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf
(SFLC's complaint)

"The License permits a licensee to distribute BusyBox, or works based 
on BusyBox, in object code or executable form, on the condition that 
the licensee gives recipients access to the source code corresponding 
to what they distribute.

[...]

Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the
Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (“Infringing Product”), which 
contains embedded executable software (“Firmware”). Defendant also 
provides the Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for 
download via its website, at 
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp.

[...]

Defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs’ notice and continues to 
distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in violation of 
Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act."

Now let's visit that link once again:

http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp

and witness that there's still no word about the GPL and/or source code 
on that web page of Verizon.

Care to explain that, GNUtian dak?

> 
> As long as Verizon stays in compliance with the settlement terms, yes,
> the court will not hear the case again.
> 
> So what?

SFLC self nuked ("with prejudice") and Verizon "continues to 
distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in violation of 
Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act" in the same
manner as Verizon did it at the time and before SFLC filing their 
idiotic complaint, stupid. You must have real fun playing an utter 
idiot, GNUtian dak.

[1] a) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(law)>

"Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be 
submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done 
so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain 
jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as 
necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the 
settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a 
civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required 
by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is 
not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the 
settlement." 

And what the court "rolled into a court order" in Verizon case is this: 

http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf 
("WITH PREJUDICE")

not a settlement.

b) From the United states Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
where SFLC resides and likes to file their idiotic complaints (just 
to dismiss voluntary and even with prejudice against own clients 
shortly after filing initial complaint):

"It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in
any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration
or registration of the copyright claim has been made in
accordance with this title." 17 U.S.C. sec. 411(a); see also 17
U.S.C. sec. 501.1 Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is
not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we
have squarely held that it is."; In re Literary Works in
Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation; Nos. 05-5943-cv(L),
06-0223-cv(CON)(2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2007).

http://infotechlawpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/01/second-circuit-vacates-settlement-of.html
(Second Circuit Vacates Settlement...)

b) From SFLC's "lawyers":

"You do not need to register to enforce your copyright. "

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html

LOL

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)