[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: |
Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:56:39 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> "Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> news:gnpj2u$7q3$1@blue.rahul.net...
>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>>Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company,
>>>for
>>>example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the
>>>FOSS folk seem to want them to do...
>> Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted
>> software. It takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with
>> their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt
>> to hide their wrong-doing.
> I don't agree with that. The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it,
> fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your
> modifications. That is not as fine, but the targets of the SFLC did not
> modify BusyBox at all.
That is only visible when the source code is available.
> They simply used it, overlooking the notion that they had to mirror the
> source for it. Since they got it for free so easily, it is easy to see
> how they could assume that they didn't really need to bother with the
> details.
That might have been the case 15 years ago, but nowadays _anybody_,
barring a confirmed troglodyte, who has anything at all to do with any
sort of software development must be cannot help but be aware of free
software and its licenses.
And a company using software not developed by itself can't help but check
the license terms of that software.
> It isn't like anything was hidden.
Exactly.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, (continued)
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, David Kastrup, 2009/02/24
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Thufir Hawat, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/23
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, David Kastrup, 2009/02/24
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Doug Mentohl, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Doctor Smith, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, David Kastrup, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rahul Dhesi, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/21
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, amicus_curious, 2009/02/21