Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:XLjnl.11049$_U5.10850@newsfe20.iad...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > Of course its the routers themselves.  That's what the SDLC sued them 
> > over, namely disributing the routers without providing the GPL source. 
> > The SDLC seems to have come to the conclusion that they were not going to 
> > win and that it was going to cost them legal fees and prestige.
>
> If Verizon is buying the routers from Actiontec, it may distribute
> them without complying with the GPL. Perhaps that is why the SFLC
> is satisfied with Actiontec making the GPLed sources available.
Do you suggest that is being compliant with the GPL?

> > You are being far too kind to the SDLC.  They had been conducting 
> > barratry against honest users of the Busybox utilities and embedded 
> > Linux.  A parade of successes against one-trick pony companies apparently 
> > made them forget the basic laws and they tried the trick on Verizon and 
> > were soon shown the error of their ways.  They 180'd out of the problem 
> > ASAP.
>
> Honest people who copy and distribute GPLed code must comply with the
> GPL and make source available. Despite your name-calling against the
> SFLC, in each and every case they have filed the sources were made
> available by the defendants or their agents.

The source was always available.  Actiontec uses source obtained directly 
from the BusyBox site, so why should they have to re-publish it?  Verizon 
get source directly from Actiontec and they don't have to re-publish it. 
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.  Face the facts.  The GPL 
could not be defended in this case and cannot be defended in general in 
regard to the re-publishing of unmodified source.  That is the only thing 
that the SDLC ever tried to litigate and as soon as they came up against a 
real corporation, they had to surrender.  Their posturing is near an end, I 
think.