Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gnpj2u$7q3$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > Look at the SFLC website for a complete list.  Typically, some company, 
> > for
> > example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the
> > FOSS folk seem to want them to do...
>
> Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted
> software.  If takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with
> their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt
> to hide their wrong-doing.
> --
I don't agree with that.  The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, 
fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your 
modifications.  That is not as fine, but the targets of the SFLC did not 
modify BusyBox at all.  They simply used it, overlooking the notion that 
they had to mirror the source for it.  Since they got it for free so easily, 
it is easy to see how they could assume that they didn't really need to 
bother with  the details.  It isn't like anything was hidden.