[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:10:53 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
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 Verizon is incurring a GPL obligation depends on the fine
 details of what it is doing, and who is considered to be doing
the copying when a person clicks on a URL in order to obtain
software. Since the URL contains the string "actiontec gateway"
it's plausible that the Verizon webserver contacts an Actiontec
gateway in order to get the software to the clicker.

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.

Having brought suit, the SFLC was in the best position to
determine what the situation was with respect to Verizon and the
GPL, since they had the ability to speak and be listened to by
the other side. They decided that it was sufficient for Actiontec
to make the GPLed sources available.

You would like to believe that Verizon is deliberately flouting
the GPL and the SFLC was unwilling to pursue the case, because
you believe that the SFLC does not actually believe in the
validity of the GPL. But really, that's all in your imagination.
There is no evidence that what you would like to believe is true.

Except for the glaring absence of source code from Verizon. Notice I
said V-e-r-i-z-o-n and not some other Joe Blow's server.

reply via email to

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