[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:53:42 -0500

"Thufir Hawat" <> wrote in message news:6vlnl.8393$aZ3.5162@newsfe01.iad...
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

Have you bothered to read the lawsuit as filed by the SDLC against Verizon? That is certainly not what they were claiming, rather the fact that Verizon was distributing the router was the essence of their complaint.

reply via email to

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