Re: 'Nuther voluntary dismissal contemplated

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Uh, they found that it is not a violation if nobody makes use of the
> opportunity.

But with GPLed software, the waters are very muddy.
The GPL permits copying but restricts distribution;
when someone initiates a download by clicking on the
link, all manner of copying between all manner of
machines begins happening. Sorting out the legalities
when permissions are in dispute is a complicated
question.

> Are we still talking about the software distributed as part of the
> routers?

No. We're talking about firmware upgrades that can be
downloaded by clicking a link on a Verizon website.
Terekhov points to that as evidence of a GPL violation
that the SFLC fled from, because they faced an opponent
who had the resources to fight them capably.

That URL embeds the string "actiontec gateway" and it's my
contention that the Verizon server may be fetching the download
directly from Actiontec and sending it on; without discovery we
can't know - I'm just going by the suggestiveness of the name.

> I suggest you don't make statements about my motives.  I consider myself
> better qualified for that.

Sorry. I should have said that this is my opinion about
your motives.