[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: Thufir Hawat
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:50:53 GMT
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:26:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

> "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.

Does the binary file which is being distributed reside on the verizon 
server?  If so, then Verizon would be required to make the source 
available upon request from a customer.  If the binary isn't on a Verizon 
server then Verizon has no obligations is the argument.

The fact that there's a link on which causes this binary to 
download doesn't prove that the binary file is on a Verizon server.


reply via email to

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