[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, 20 Feb 2009 18:00:37 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
Would you format your paragraphs properly in future, please?
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> So they [SFLC] didn't suddenly "become aware" of anything at all. They
> just became suddenly aware that they were out to lunch on the law and
> were about to have their case tossed out of court, so they surrendered,
> begging Verizon to not make an issue of things and probably paying for
> Verizon's costs. It was a total loss.
That's not the way the SFLC sees it. On
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/ we have:
As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox
under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source
Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Actiontec and
its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the software
under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, (continued)
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Mart van de Wege, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/22
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Mart van de Wege, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Chris Ahlstrom, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/20
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/20