[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:56:39 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <> wrote:

> "Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message 
> news:gnpj2u$7q3$
>> "amicus_curious" <> writes:

>>>Look at the SFLC website for a complete list.  Typically, some company, 
>>>example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the
>>>FOSS folk seem to want them to do...

>> Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted
>> software.  It takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with
>> their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt
>> to hide their wrong-doing.

> I don't agree with that.  The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, 
> fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your 
> modifications.  That is not as fine, but the targets of the SFLC did not 
> modify BusyBox at all.

That is only visible when the source code is available.

> They simply used it, overlooking the notion that they had to mirror the
> source for it.  Since they got it for free so easily, it is easy to see
> how they could assume that they didn't really need to bother with the
> details.

That might have been the case 15 years ago, but nowadays _anybody_,
barring a confirmed troglodyte, who has anything at all to do with any
sort of software development must be cannot help but be aware of free
software and its licenses.

And a company using software not developed by itself can't help but check
the license terms of that software.

> It isn't like anything was hidden.


Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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