[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:44:17 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
Even though Verizon is openly distributing a product that contains GPL licensed software, they do not provide the source.

If it's the routers themselves, then if Verizon buys them from Actiontec and distributes them to customers, they do not need to follow the GPL because of first sale. I don't have one of these routers, so I don't know whether the router itself comes in the box with the proper GPL notification.

If it's the firmware link, then it's not clear that Verizon is copying the software in a way that the law would interpret as requiring separate copyright permission - there's an "actiontec gateway" involved, and I don't even know if it has been settled as to which party violates copyright when a download is requested.

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.

The way I would interpret this is that once the SFLC began dealing with Verizon and Actiontec, they became privy to more detailed information

Yeah, "more detailed" alright. . . like the BusyBox alleged authors
had no registered copyrights? Even the lowliest ambulance chaser in
the Second Circuit would know to check the Copyright Office for
registration and that an author has no standing to sue for copyright
infringement without registered copyrights.

than they had from the outside, and decided that having Actiontec
 provide the GPLed sources was sufficient.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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