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

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> 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.