[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 19:18:09 -0500

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:oTEnl.22788$uG1.3927@newsfe16.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
No one wants to have to bother with that.

No one likes to pay money for software either, and the BSA
goes after companies who fail to do so without worrying
about sullying the good name of proprietary software.

They get some real money, too. That is because the proprietary software has some value, whereas a copy of a superceded source tree for BusyBox is worthless.

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

Verizon appears to think it necessary to provide a link to
Actiontec's firmware. If it's necessary to provide binaries,
it's good for users' freedom to provide source.

That is a link to Actiontec's firmware for firmware updates. That has some use, whereas a source for BusyBox version 0.5 hardly satisfies anyone's need. Verizon does not provide such a link, BTW.

> 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?

That has a simple answer - every single company who has been sued
by the SFLC and has agreed to comply with the GPL instead of stopping
distribution of GPLed software.

But not Verizon. They never agreed to anything.

reply via email to

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