Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gnncnr$vod$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> There is a lot of truth in what you wrote, and it's not specific to free
> software. Enforcement of copyright (and patents) often gives the
> enforcer a bad name.
I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the 
enforcement of meaningless requirements.  If the RIAA pinches some 
downloader, they get a few thousand bucks or more in return.  That, at 
least, makes some sense as to why the RIAA is being so diligent.  But just 
having another unvisited site for some out of date source code is hardly 
worth the time and effort of the courts to go along on this ego trip. 
Surely no one in their right mind would use the Actiontec site as a source 
for BusyBox, they would go the the BusyBox project site for the latest 
fixes.