[Top][All Lists]

[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 17:03:22 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Hi, Alex!

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> >> 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?

>> > Sure it does violate the GPL, Alan. Go to Verizon's download page and
>> > try to find accompanied text of the GPL and/or sources (or "a written
>> > offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a
>> > charge no more than your cost of physically performing source
>> > distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
>> > source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
>> > on a medium customarily used for software interchange").
>> Is it actually GPL software that's being offered from that page?  

> What is your guess, Alan?

That if you knew for sure, you'd say.

>> If so, is the source code for it available?

> It is certainly available somewhere (e.g. the busybox project's site
> itself), but *Verizon* doesn't make it available as promulgated by the
> GPLv2 Section 3.

Perhaps this "somewhere" was accepted as acceptable by the plaintiffs in
the case when the volutary dismissal was being negotiated.  After all,
there's no point suing for violation of the license if it's being
honoured in sprit.

> [...]

>> >> >
>> >> The notice is actually of voluntary dismissal, and there is no sign of
>> >> anything "against" the plaintiffs.
>> > Man oh man. It is by definition of "dismissal with prejudice" that it is
>> > against the plaintiffs, idiot. Dismissal with prejudice is detrimental
>> > to plaintiffs, not defendants.
>> No, the "predjudice" bit just means the case can't be restarted.

> And that means what to you, Alan?

The the plaintiff was convinced there was nothing important enough (if
anything) outstanding to be worth fighting through the courts, and that
nothing important was going to spring up again.

> Hth.

Of that, I'm less than fully convinced.  ;-)

Have an ice day, Alex!

> regards,
> alexander.

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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