[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: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:14:32 -0500

"Alan Mackenzie" <> wrote in message news:gnmr45$1qm6$
Would you format your paragraphs properly in future, please?

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <> wrote:

So they [SFLC] didn't suddenly "become aware" of anything at all.  They
just became suddenly aware that they were out to lunch on the law and
were about to have their case tossed out of court, so they surrendered,
begging Verizon to not make an issue of things and probably paying for
Verizon's costs.  It was a total loss.

That's not the way the SFLC sees it.  On we have:

   As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
   reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox
   under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source
   Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
   compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
   previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
   efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Actiontec and
   its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the software
   under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
   financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec.

Note the fact that Verizon, the defendant, is not mentioned in this statement as having to do anything at all. The SDLC surrendered, pure and simple. They look like fools.

reply via email to

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