|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:55:01 -0500 |
"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 85bpsuu9if.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85bpsuu9if.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
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."amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message news:gnq41q$srv$1@blue.rahul.net..."amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> 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 daythey 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' disposition.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |