Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Hyman Rosen]

amicus_curious wrote:
> But not for Verizon anymore?

That depends on the details of what Verizon is doing with
the software. If it is making copies and distributing them,
the the GPL applies to them. When it offers a web page link
through an "actiontec gateway" the answer depends on the
details of the process and how those details are interpreted
through copyright law.

> What did they really "win", though?

The router manufacturer is complying with the GPL.

> What ActionTec is publishing is the original, unmodified BusyBox,
> and an old version from 2006 at that. That hardly helps FOSS along.

This is precisely the reason that the terms of the GPL are
important. Users who want to exercise their four freedoms
need to have the exact source available on the device they
get.

And the purpose of the GPL is not to "help FOSS along".
It is to make sure that users who get software are able
to exercise their freedoms. Anything which hinders users
from exercising those freedoms is not helping free software.