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

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:597wl.128663$xK6.53657@newsfe12.iad...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > Well at least we can define the FSF and SFLC as stupid.  That is a 
> > beginning.
>
> No, not the FSF and the SFLC. You.

Well, then the FSF is just misinformed about their strategy.  They once 
said, in regard to the Verizon case:

"But Ravicher claimed that both Actiontec and Verizon have to adhere to the 
requirements of the GPL as distributors of BusyBox.

"When Actiontec distributes to Verizon, Actiontec has obligations," he said. 
"When Verizon turns around and redistributes to customers, Verizon has 
obligations. Even if Actiontec fulfills its obligations when it distributes 
to Verizon, that does not fulfill Verizon's obligations when it distributes 
to its customers.""

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=development&articleId=9051799&taxonomyId=11&intsrc=kc_top

Now Actiontec is indeed publishing the GPL source, but they were never sued 
either.  OTOH, Verizon is not publishing anything, not even a mention of the 
GPL as existing, and totally thumbed their noses at the SFLC.  Now they 
enjoy total immunity due to the original action being dismissed with 
prejudice.  All achieved by not firing a single shot.  Apparently Verizon no 
longer has any obligations.

And you call that a success?  Who are you trying to kid?  Yourself? 
Certainly no one else.