[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:46:27 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Rjack <> writes:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>> What irks me is that the victims of the SDLC

Wait, where are the victims if the rant du jour is that the cases are
all voluntarily dismissed with damage to the SDLC?  Really, our trolls
should try not to claim too many contradictory things at once.

>> are the little companies that use Linux the way that it was intended
>> to be used

Uh, disobeying the license and not making source of derivative works
available?  That's how Linux was intended to be used?  Who intended it
to be used thus?

>> and do not have the resources to waste on defending their otherwise
>> clean conduct.

Clean other than breaching the license?  That's like a child proudly
announcing that it managed to keep clean apart from rolling around in

>> So they are pounced upon by the FSF/SDLC and made to pay homage to
>> the cause along with being mugged for a few bucks to keep the muggers
>> mugging.

Actually, the FSF/SDLC approach the "victims" out of court first.  It is
just if the "victims" continue breaching the license terms that the
"muggers" go to court.  And once the defendants see that they have no
case to make, they usually settle by heeding the license.

>> At the end of the day, the victims are a little poorer, FOSS is no
>> better off, and the world is not changed one whit.

The source code to the work in question is made available.  That is a

>> The people who use the FOSS products in commerce are paying the price
>> rather than being encouraged to do more.  That is why Linux is a
>> flop.

Sure, and a flop that has pushed most other operating systems from the
top of supercomputer performance lists.

> You are correct in your assessment of some of the results of the
> SFLC's frivolous suits. I was concerned with the detrimental effects
> of these suits on *real* open source projects under MIT, BSD and other
> valid "non-recursive" open source licenses (contracts that are legally
> enforcable under U.S. copyright law). I have had to re-evaluate my
> estimate of the detriment caused by these frivolous suits.

Uh, if the suits were "frivolous" you could be sure that some of the
defendants would countersue for defamation rather than settle.

> I have Google automatic alerts set for tracking various elements of
> software licensing. What I see is an increasingly negative reaction to
> the SFLC tactics and growing support for projects that are developed
> under truly "free" open source licenses that do not attempt to control
> other people's contributions to projects.

Sure you could name a few examples.

> The old adage "there's a little bit of good in everything" seems to be
> true concerning the SFLC's frivolous and obnoxious lawsuits.

Not to mention your frivolous and obnoxious postings.

> Contributions to non-GPL projects are definitely on the uptick.

Finally managing to get out the gate does not yet win the race.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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