gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:19:06 +0100

David Kastrup wrote:

[...]

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jun/10/busybox/bell-complaint.pdf

SFLC:

"12. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Firmware contains 
BusyBox, or a modified version of BusyBox that is substantially 
similar to BusyBox, in object code or executable form. Distribution 
of the Firmware, either as part of the Infringing Products or by 
itself, thus inherently includes distribution of BusyBox and, as such, 
Defendant is required to have Plaintiffs’ permission to make that 
distribution. The only such permission available for BusyBox is the 
contingent one granted under the License."

> > "12. Bell Microproducts admits that it purchases storage devices that
> > contain firmware from a third party. Bell Microproducts is unaware if
> > the firmware it purchases from the third party contains BusyBox. Bell
> > Microproducts states that the License speaks for itself and on that
> > basis,denies any allegations of paragraph 12 inconsistent therewith.
> > Except as expressly admitted, Bell Microproducts denies all the
> > allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
> 
> Well, Bell states that it is not privy to a purported copyright
> transgression, and thus explicitly states that it has not availed

Uh silly dak. "not privy to a purported copyright transgression" LOL.

> themselves of the GPL as a license, as they claim not to be in need of
> any license at all from the plaintiff.

SFLC:

"14. Under the License, any party that redistributes BusyBox in a manner 
that does not comply with the terms of the License immediately and 
automatically loses all rights granted under it. Section 4 of the
License 
states:

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except 
as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, 
modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will 
automatically terminate your rights under this License.

As such, any rights Defendant may have had under the License to 
redistribute BusyBox were automatically terminated the instant that 
Defendant made non-compliant distribution of the Infringing Products 
or Firmware. Since that time, Defendant has had no right to distribute 
BusyBox, or a modified version of BusyBox, under any circumstances or 
conditions."

http://www.terekhov.de/14.pdf

Bell Microproducts:

"14. In response to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
states that the License speaks for itself and on that basis, denies 
any allegations of paragraph 14 inconsistent therewith."

SFLC:

"15. Upon information and belief, on January 18, 2008, Defendant was 
notified by a third party of the relevant terms of the GPL and 
Defendant’s infringement thereof. This notification was provided via 
an e-mail requesting the complete and corresponding source code of the 
GPL-licensed software on an Infringing Product."

Bell Microproducts:

"15. Upon information and belief, Bell Microproducts denies the 
allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint."

SFLC:

"16. On April 21, 2008, through their counsel, Plaintiffs notified 
Defendant of its unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply 
with the License. Defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs’ notice 
and continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in 
violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act."

Bell Microproducts:

"16. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Bell Microproducts 
admits that Plaintiffs sent a letter dated April 21, 2008, addressed 
to “Hammer Storage by Bell Microproducts” alleging Hammer Storage 
failed to comply with the License. Except as expressly admitted, Bell
Microproducts denies, generally and specifically, the allegations 
contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint."

> 
> Which makes this case be a plain copyright-relevant-or-not case not
> involving the GPL.

Why did SFLC attached the GPL to the complaint silly?

Go do doctor dak. 

regards,
alexander.

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

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