Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:

> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
> news:hFCnl.31268$6r1.20580@newsfe19.iad...
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>  This is the kind of nonsense that gives FOSS a bad name.

>> But free software has a very good reputation, not a bad one.
>> It is copyright violation that has the bad name.

> Well, consider, the Verizon case.  They were buying a router from
> Actiontec and reselling it as part of their service offerings to
> individual and corporate communications customers.  All of a sudden,
> the SDLC files a lawsuit against them for not giving out the source
> code for something that they probably had no knowledge about.  All
> they were doing is re-selling routers.

The said routers, however, contained unlicensed software.  "Pirated"
software, or what some people call "stolen" software.

> No one wants to have to bother with that.

Of course not.  Responsible companies don't sell illicitly copied code to
their customers.  Presumably in Verizon's contract with Actiontec, there
would have been a clause stating that the stuff supplied by Actiontec
would be legal and above board.

> There is absolutely no benefit to anyone for having Verizon put some
> obscure crap on their website.

No more than there is having it posted on this newsgroup.

> It is just an ego thing for the whackos that piddle around with
> busybox.

You mean, the people who've written and who maintain a useful piece of
software?

> But Verizon and its stockholders and even its customers suffer a bit
> from the crazy antics of the SDLC.  That gives FOSS a bad name.  Who
> wants to use stuff like that and risk getting bitten by the looney
> tunes that think software is some kind of religious experience?

Hahahaha!  Apparently Actiontec did.  The terms of the licence are not
onerous or difficult to understand, at least not for most people.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).