[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: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:55:01 -0500

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message 85bpsuu9if.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85bpsuu9if.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

"Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

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.

A lot of time is often wasted any time somebody disrespects somebody
else's copyright. Litigation is usually costly.

The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended.  If they respected the copyrights of
software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary.

Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could just ignore the
situation and be happy that someone else thought enough of their
creation to use it themselves.

Again you are confused.  It is the BSD license style that cares about
attribution.  The copyleft licenses care about keeping the software
alive and in fully useful form for the device in question, at the users'

Again, you miss the point. For the BusyBox lawsuits there is no issue about keeping the softwae alive. It is being used and BusyBox has a site where anyone can go and obtain it. None of the defendants in these cases made the slightest alteration to BusyBox, so having to publish the source only affects attribution. Do you seriously think that anyone who might want to use BusyBox would first find out about it from Actiontec and then rely on Actiontec for source? That is silly.

reply via email to

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