[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Thufir Hawat
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:59:14 GMT
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:05:35 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> 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.

You're begging the question and haven't established that Verizon is a 
distributor *in the sense which applies here*.

The critical point is that the OEM is Actiontec.  How does Verizon obtain 
the routers?  Actiontec distributes the routers to Verizon.  It seems 
debatable that Verizon is even a distributor in this sense as Verizon 
didn't install Linux onto the router.

I think that the key distinction is *who* put Linux on the router, and 
that whoever did is the distributor.  Some third party who sells a device 
with GPL software installed on it isn't necessarily distributing that 


reply via email to

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