gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:37:33 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

>> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Tell me, have there been any cases where somebody has been sued for
>> >> infringement of the GPL (whichever version), and the resolution of the
>> >> legal process has allowed him to continue infringing the GPL?
 
>> > Case number 1:07-cv-11070-LTS.
 
>> > On this page
 
>> > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
 
>> > Verizon continues to distribute GPL'd works in binary form utterly
>> > ignoring the GPL.
 
>> Does it ignore the GPL?  I haven't checked.

> Why don't you "check it", Alan?

I was assuming you'd have already checked it, and would want to save
others on the newsgroup, including me, from needless work.  Have you
checked it, Alex?  Does the download offered on that page violate the
GPL?

>> > The case against Verizon
 
>> > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf
 
>> That's just the plaintiff's complaint.

> Yeah, and... ?

So it wasn't particularly pertinent to the point at issue, that's all.
But thanks, anyhow.
 
>> > was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs.
 
>> Was it?  Can you cite the document of dismissal?  That would be more
>> helpful.

> http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/DISMISSAL.pdf

The notice is actually of voluntary dismissal, and there is no sign of
anything "against" the plaintiffs.  It looks like the point having
become moot as a result of the defendant coming into compliance before
the actual case.

But then, you're familiar with the details.  Is there any evidence in
this case that this dismissal has allowed the defendant (Verizon) to
continue infringing the GPL?

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
 


reply via email to

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