Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:xggnl.13328$i42.12940@newsfe17.iad...
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > "Hyman Rosen gateway"
>
> Without knowing the details of what Verizon is doing,
> it's not possible to say from the outside whether Verizon
> is violating the GPL. The ones best placed to do that are
> the copyright holders, and they appear to have decided that
> having Actiontec distribute the GPLed sources was sufficient.
>
> You would like to believe that Verizon is deliberately
> violating the GPL and the SFLC is too timid to pursue them,
> but there is no evidence for your claim.

Verizon openly distributes the Ationtec product.  That makes them a 
distributor and does not make Actiontec a Verizon agent.  Even though 
Verizon is openly distributing a product that contains GPL licensed 
software, they do not provide the source.  One has to go to some upstream 
locatoion in order to obtain source.  The SDLC sued Verizon originally to 
make this happen, but then offered a dismissal (with predjudice) to vacate 
the suit.  That is fleeing the field, no matter what motivation you want to 
impute to the SDLC.  Verizon obtains authorized copies of GPL licensed 
material from Actiontec and is free to distribute them any way it sees fit, 
the GPL terms nothwithstanding.  Moglen presumably understands that to be 
the case and surrendered before the judge could rule on the motion.