gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:27:04 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> I was assuming you'd have already checked it, and would want to save
>> others on the newsgroup, including me, from needless work.  Have you
>> checked it, Alex?  Does the download offered on that page violate the
>> GPL?

> Sure it does violate the GPL, Alan. Go to Verizon's download page and
> try to find accompanied text of the GPL and/or sources (or "a written
> offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a
> charge no more than your cost of physically performing source
> distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding
> source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
> on a medium customarily used for software interchange").

Is it actually GPL software that's being offered from that page?  If so,
is the source code for it available?

>> >> > The case against Verizon
 
>> >> > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf
 
>> >> That's just the plaintiff's complaint.
 
>> > Yeah, and... ?
 
>> So it wasn't particularly pertinent to the point at issue, that's all.
>> But thanks, anyhow.

> The case against Verizon was formulated in the plaintiff's complaint,
> stupid.

True, but the point at issue is how the court case was resolved, not how
it started.

>> >> > was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE against plaintiffs.
 
>> >> Was it?  Can you cite the document of dismissal?  That would be more
>> >> helpful.
 
>> > http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/DISMISSAL.pdf
 
>> The notice is actually of voluntary dismissal, and there is no sign of
>> anything "against" the plaintiffs.  

> Man oh man. It is by definition of "dismissal with prejudice" that it is
> against the plaintiffs, idiot. Dismissal with prejudice is detrimental
> to plaintiffs, not defendants.

No, the "predjudice" bit just means the case can't be restarted.

>>                                    It looks like the point having
>> become moot as a result of the defendant coming into compliance before
>> the actual case.

> When did Verizon came into compliance? Are you hallucinating, Alan?

No, but jousting with you on this newsgroup sometimes feels like it.

>> But then, you're familiar with the details.  Is there any evidence in
>> this case that this dismissal has allowed the defendant (Verizon) to
>> continue infringing the GPL?

> Read on what "res judicata" means...

Is there any evidence in this case that this dismissal has allowed the
defendant (Verizon) to continue infringing the GPL?  Just thought you
might know the answer to that question.  It's the main point in this
sub-thread.  If you don't know, that's fine.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]