"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
85bpsuu9if.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85bpsuu9if.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:gnq41q$srv$1@blue.rahul.net...
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the
SFLC and its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time.
Perhaps they have a legal right to do that, but it is still
nonsense and at the end of the day they will be remembered as being
egotistical fools who just wasted the people's time.
A lot of time is often wasted any time somebody disrespects somebody
else's copyright. Litigation is usually costly.
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary.
Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could just ignore the
situation and be happy that someone else thought enough of their
creation to use it themselves.
Again you are confused. It is the BSD license style that cares about
attribution. The copyleft licenses care about keeping the software
alive and in fully useful form for the device in question, at the users'
disposition.
Again, you miss the point. For the BusyBox lawsuits there is no issue
about keeping the softwae alive.
The point is keeping the _device_ alive (and being able to modify it).
The software is a part of it. You can't just substitute any other
version's debugging symbols, for example.
You don't understand about different licenses, you don't understand
about the motivation behind licenses, you don't understand basic logic.
That's ok. Even dimwits can get along if they obey the laws. Even if
they don't understand one bit about their backgrounds.