[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:09:34 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

amicus_curious wrote:

"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.

Look like fools? They are fools.

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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