[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: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:30:43 -0500

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message 851vtr64ch.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:851vtr64ch.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

"David Kastrup" <> wrote:
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

but that is meaningless to me.

Laws don't depend on you seeing a meaning in them.

Who is talking about the law?

The judges, and you can read in the subject title that this thread is
about laws and their interpretation in court.

Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC and its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have a legal right to do that, but it is still nonsense and at the end of the day they will be remembered as being egotistical fools who just wasted the people's time.

I was talking about whether or not the lawsuit helps mankind and it
plainly does not.

Definitely.  That's why it would be better if the defendants complied
with the license without the necessity to take this to court.

No lawsuit helps mankind since defendant and plaintiff could have right
away acted in the manner that the court sets forth.

But that's humanity.

It is just an ego trip for the authors and a quick buck for the

Again, you are confused.  GPL lawsuits are not primarily about
attribution (you could sue for that equally well using the BSD license),
but about the provision of source code from _different_ authors, clearly
marked as such.  How can it be an "ego trip" if you tell somebody else
to show _his_ parts of the code with _his_ signature?

I could accept that, if it were true, but the people being sued by BusyBox and subsequently posting the BusyBox source have not made any modifications to it. Different companies are posting different releases of BusyBox, Actiontec, for example, posts version 0.5 and Monsoon has 1.0. The BusyBox site is up to 1.3 or such.

So the authors are only looking for their name in lights since there is no other earthly use for these obsolete revs.

And how can it be a "quick buck" if, as you pretend to claim half of the
time, the cases are dismissed with unsavory conditions for the

So get a grip and a clue and try to make coherent sense instead of
merely foaming at your mouth.

You have a hard time with context and keeping individual claims associated with the one that made them. I have never said the SFLC was obtaining unsavory conditions for their clients other that the fact that the Verizon suit was dismissed with predjudice after absolutlely no concessions on the part of Verizon. I think that everyone who reads this stuff can see where the SFLC press release was just nonsense and a poor attempt to save face by saying they really didn't mean to sue Verizon, they just wanted Actiontec to do something (which Actiontec apparently already had done prior to the suit being filed agains Verizon.)

I am saying, instead, that the filing of a lawsuit can only make the logical users of FOSS pause and consider whether or not they want to risk using a FOSS program or library when clowns like BusyBox are out in the wild preying on those who might make a misstep.

Pathetic is not the worst description of your self-contradictory
ill-informed ill-judged postings.

Oh, you loonies just don't like to admit that your cause is
fundamentally worthless in this day and age.

So what happened to the quick buck again?

That is only accruing to Moglen and his cronies at the SFLC. They get their attorney's fees paid by the victim. That is the way the RIAA works, too, holding up the huge cost of a litigation, if lost, over the head of their prey who can escape by paying a few thousand bucks to the shysters instead. Few fight when the penalties and rewards are so lopsided.

No one takes apart complex applications in order to change them, there
is no value in having all those restrictions as posed by the GPL.

So where do the lawsuits come from if nobody actually makes use of the
software in question?

From the guys who have the GPL copyright, of course. That is only BusyBox,
it seems. For example in the Actiontec suit there were about 20 GPL source packages eventually listed on the Actiontec website, but they were only sued for the BusyBox stuff. The old idea that Sallman had about those who received software downstream needing to understand it so that they could modify it is rather passe'. If OpenOffice or Linux doesn't work exactly the way I want, I am not going to fool around re-writing the damn thing. No one does that. They just complain to the manufacturer and maybe their needs are taken care of in a subsequent release, maybe not. Who can afford to learn enough about Linux or OO or any other big program to the point where they can effectively make modifications?

Stallman is living in the 70s or worse.

The actions of the SDLC prove that it is only viable as a way to
harass those who might want to take advantage of FOSS.  With that kind
of trouble, the users will be fewer than otherwise.

Free software does not benefit from users who won't contribute anything
back.  So there is no loss here.


reply via email to

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