[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Peter Köhlmann
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:32:09 +0100
User-agent: KNode/0.99.01

amicus_curious wrote:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <> wrote in message
> news:49a1cb88$0$31337$
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>> "Rahul Dhesi" <> wrote in message
>>> news:gnqh4u$9j9$
>>>> "amicus_curious" <> writes:
>>>>>> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>They suggested that the requirements were not meaningless to the
>>>>>copyright holders who get a thrill out of seeing their name in print,
>>>>>but that is meaningless to me.  I think that it speaks ill of those
>>>>>egomaniacs who want to create such a ruckus just so that the world
>>>>>might see how smart they are.  Pathetic.
>>>> Perhaps you haven't read what the CAFC wrote. Here is a fragment.
>>>>  Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder
>>>>  gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by
>>>>  requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the
>>>>  copyright holder and others, the copyright holder learns about the
>>>>  uses for his software and gains others' knowledge that can be used
>>>>  to advance future software releases.
>>>> Please read the whole thing -- it's online at
>>> I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with
>>> the
>>> notion as a concept.  However, in the case of BusyBox, such
>>> hypothetical
>>> benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders.  There was no
>>> modification
>>> that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any user.  In the
>>> JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be true.
>> Your severe reading comprehension problem is showing up again.
>> There is absolutely not requirement that the source has have to be
>> "changed" in any shape or form by the GPL.
>> The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
>> binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source
>> (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available.
>> Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law
> No shit, Dick Tracy.  I simply say that is silly.

What you say is utterly irrelevant
>> Nobody can come up with "the source is not changed, hunt it down
>> yourself"
> Would you have any trouble finding it?  


> You say you know all about this
> stuff and you are known to be an idiot, so the implication is that even
> an idiot could find the source themselves and save the few people taking
> advantage of FOSS the trouble of doing this meaningless repetition.

Again, totally irrelevant

When someone starts distributing GPLed software, he knows what his 
obligations are. And he certainly has no rights to shrug them off like you 
try to do
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.

reply via email to

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