[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:39:14 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Rjack wrote:
The purpose of the GPLv2 is to destroy proprietary software.

The reason to destroy proprietary software is because users of
proprietary software are generally not free to run, read, modify,
and share the code. The GPL can only destroy proprietary software
by providing more attractive alternatives, and that competition
is what all products must face.

How is it you know the purpose of others creations better than the
creators? Are you mooooooooooooooooooooooving the goal(posts)?

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are
    designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.
    By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to
    guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a
    program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users.

You appear to have reality mixed up with fantasy.

You may dislike the goals of the GPL and its creators, but if you
lie about what they are, you will be corrected.

There weeeeeeeeeeeeeent the goalposts. Neither can you know since
you are not a party either.

We can see from our outside point of view that the defendants have
come into compliance with the GPL. The purpose of GPL enforcement
actions is to achive compliance with the GPL. It is irrelevant to
me whether the SFLC in addition received a monetary settlement, but
if you claim they did not, you will have to offer more evidence than
your wishful (and incorrect) thinking.

How is it you know better what the SFLC what they wish from their

Because their clients say so publicly.

    Our enforcement efforts are aimed at bringing people into
    compliance with the BusyBox license.
    We don't want monetary awards, injunctions, or to generate
    bad PR for a company, unless that's the only way to get
    somebody that repeatedly ignores us to comply with the
    license on our code.

We can clearly read the relief requested by the SFLC in
their frivolous complaints in THEIR own words. People can read
what the SFLC requested and compare it with that which you *assert*
the SFLC requested.

That assertion is based on the statements of their clients. The
SFLC cannot compel defendants to accept the GPL because that is
voluntary. They sue for copyright infringement with all the normal
claims that would be made in any other such case. It is up to the
defendants to assert their use of the GPL if they wish to.

Your lame attempts to moooooooooooooooove the goalposts are
immediately recognizable as such.

Your desperation at the lack of real-world vindication for your
incorrect beliefs is immediately recognizable as such.

reply via email to

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