[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:45:02 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Thufir Hawat wrote:
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 software.

Correct. Because the GPL is a copyright license, it can affect only those
who do things with the code that copyright would otherwise restrict. When
Actiontec makes routers and installs BusyBox on them, they need permission
because they are making copies of BusyBox. When Verizon gets those routers
and passes them on to customers, they are not doing anything which requires
permission from copyright holders, and so need do nothing with the GPL.

The only question is Verizon's web link for obtaining firmware upgrades.

reply via email to

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