[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 21:19:28 -0500

"Alan Mackenzie" <> wrote in message news:gnq4bn$27ef$
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <> wrote:

"Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message
"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

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.

I somewhat agree and, further, the knowledgeable software developer would know to go to the original source for a copy of anything that they might want to use.

reply via email to

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