amicus_curious wrote:
When none of the elements of a lawsuit are attained, I call
that a loss.
The purpose of the FSF is to promote software that users may run,
read, modify, and share. For a significant period of time before
the SFLC filed its suit, Verizon was distributing FiOS routers
with GPLed code in violation of the GPL. After the case ended,
Verizon is now complying with the GPL, and users of its routers
may run, read, modify, and share the software it contains.
On <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/>, the SFLC says that
SFLC defends the integrity of FOSS licenses against both adverse
judicial interpretation and legislative interference. SFLC
accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US copyrights
and coordinates international copyright enforcement efforts of
represented works as necessary. SFLC also assists clients and the
general FOSS community in resolution of disputes relating to the
use and development of FOSS.
They defend copyrights. They do that through the normal
litigation process, which always involves maxing maximalist
claims. Their defense of the copyrights has worked so far, and
therefore they may properly claim victory.
Verizon thumbed their noses at the GPL and nothing happened to
them.
Verizon now properly complies with the GPL, just as they are
required to do if they wish to distribute GPLed software. The
Verizon-branded manual
<http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf>
contains a GPL section, and the router comes with a GPL software
disk. You may believe that this constitutes Verizon thumbing its
nose, but people who are not warped by their unreasoning dislike
of the GPL will have a rather different opinion.