[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: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:08:10 -0500

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:XPApl.52424$6r1.35187@newsfe19.iad...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See also:

Yes, please do:
    (l)  Other Defenses Not Affected.— The failure of a
    service provider’s conduct to qualify for limitation
    of liability under this section shall not bear
    adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the
    service provider that the service provider’s conduct
    is not infringing under this title or any other defense.

As I said, the question is whether the "actiontec gateway" URL
on the Verizon page causes an obligation to Verizon under the
GPL when a user downloads software through it.

Because you dislike the GPL, you would like the answer to that
question to be "yes", although in a convoluted form - you would
like to believe that no such obligation truly exists, but you
want GPL advocates to believe that it does - so that Verizon can
be said to be violating the GPL with impunity while the SFLC is
too timid to pursue them. But there is no evidence for this.

You ignore the rather obvious fact that Verizon is distributing binary code for the routers from its own website to anyone and everyone who wants it without regard to the requirements of the GPL that this binary code be accompanied by the source that created it. Whether or not the SFLC is timid seems to be of no consequence since they abandoned their suit against Verizon regarding this sort of conduct with predjudice.

reply via email to

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