Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Peter Köhlmann]

amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> "Alan Mackenzie" <acm@muc.de> wrote in message
> news:gnp3nr$2qen$1@colin2.muc.de...
>> In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gnncnr$vod$1@blue.rahul.net...
>>>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>That gives FOSS a bad name.  Who wants to use stuff like that and
>>>>>risk getting bitten by the looney tunes that think software is some
>>>>>kind of religious experience?
>>
>>>> There is a lot of truth in what you wrote, and it's not specific to
>>>> free software. Enforcement of copyright (and patents) often gives the
>>>> enforcer a bad name.
>>
>>> I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the
>>> enforcement of meaningless requirements.  If the RIAA pinches some
>>> downloader, they get a few thousand bucks or more in return.  That, at
>>> least, makes some sense as to why the RIAA is being so diligent.  But
>>> just
>>> having another unvisited site for some out of date source code is
>>> hardly worth the time and effort of the courts to go along on this ego
>>> trip.
>>
>> It's hardly meaningless.  It means the source code is available.
>>
> An old version of BusyBox?  How wonderful for you all!
> 
>>> Surely no one in their right mind would use the Actiontec site as a
>>> source for BusyBox, they would go the the BusyBox project site for the
>>> latest fixes.
>>
>> They're likely to want the source of the version embedded in their
>> Actiontec box.  For example, to diagnose a problem, or to complain
>> about its out-of-dateness, or to check it for security problems.
>>
> It is a silly little router for goodness' sake!  Nothing proprietary
> about
> that, these things are as old as the hills.  The money and quality
> differences are in the hardware, not the firmware.  No one other than
> router hardware makers give a hoot about it and they all use pretty much
> the same
> stuff.  If there is a problem with it, it gets tossed in the waste
> basket
> and another unit is installed to replace it.  If it fails early, it gets
> returned to the store or to the manufacturer for credit.

Yes, we know that you wintendo fanbois have some "problems" with what is 
right and what is not.

You only cry "foul" for your beloved MS.

If on the other hand IP from OSS is simply stolen, you find that OK.
If a company decides to ignore the licence of the software they use, you 
find that it is *bad* if it is MS software (and should naturally be 
punished), and you find it of no consequence if it is OSS software

A fine bunch of thieves you are
-- 
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?