Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Hyman Rosen]

amicus_curious wrote:
> Of course its the routers themselves.  That's what the SDLC sued them 
> over, namely disributing the routers without providing the GPL source.  
> The SDLC seems to have come to the conclusion that they were not going 
> to win and that it was going to cost them legal fees and prestige.

If Verizon is buying the routers from Actiontec, it may distribute
them without complying with the GPL. Perhaps that is why the SFLC
is satisfied with Actiontec making the GPLed sources available.

> You are being far too kind to the SDLC.  They had been conducting 
> barratry against honest users of the Busybox utilities and embedded 
> Linux.  A parade of successes against one-trick pony companies 
> apparently made them forget the basic laws and they tried the trick on 
> Verizon and were soon shown the error of their ways.  They 180'd out of 
> the problem ASAP.

Honest people who copy and distribute GPLed code must comply with the
GPL and make source available. Despite your name-calling against the
SFLC, in each and every case they have filed the sources were made
available by the defendants or their agents.