[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:57:58 -0500

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:cnDil.225$ti1.138@newsfe21.iad...
Rjack wrote:
Is that like Verizon Communications telling the SFLC to kiss their
royal, deep-pocketed ass and subsequently receiving a NICE
BIG, FAT voluntary dismissal *WITH PREDJUDICE*.

It is only your interpretation that this is what happened.
The manufacturer of the routers, Actiontec, made the source
code properly available under the GPL. Verizon's connection
is that they have a website link for downloading firmware.
That link contains the string "actiontec gateway". Without
knowing the details of what Verizon's webserver is doing,
it is difficult to know whether this is a violation of the
GPL. The copyright holders appear to be satisfied with the
sources being available from Actiontec, and they are in the
best position to know.

The fact of the matter is that Verizon was given a dismissal with predjudice by the SFLC. Significantly, the SFLC "settled" with a party that had not even been sued. The result is that Verizon is now redistributing GPL'd product without they themselves bothering to provide the source references originally insisted upon. If you choose to think that is the decision of the copyright holders, you are, of course correct, but a more expansive view would say that the copyright holders were forced to abandon their suit after reading the handwriting on the wall. They came up with a limp sort of face-saving explanation, of course, but it is pretty transparent.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]