[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 15:26:56 -0500

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message news:0fCpl.43919$cI2.32936@newsfe09.iad...
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.

Not plausible at all. I am sure that Verizon obtained their copy of the binary files from Actiontec, but they are plainly sourced from the Verizon site. Do you have the slightest understanding of how these sites work? Apparently not, else you would not suggest such a silly thing.

> 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

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.

The evidence is as plain as day. You just do not have the technical understanding necessary to recognize it.

reply via email to

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