David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > In the Verizon case, Verizon kicked their butt out of court and forced > > them to give up the right to file their silly GPL claims against > > Verizon ever again. > > Uh what? > <URL:http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206904096> > > "As part of the settlement announced Monday, Verizon (NYSE: VZ) > subcontractor Actiontec Electronics must pay an undisclosed sum to > developers Erick Andersen and Rob Landley. It must also appoint an > internal officer to ensure that it's in compliance with licenses > governing the open source software it uses. "
Verizon isn't a party to that "settlement"[1] to begin with and the suit was against Verizon (that's not Actiontec), moron. As for Actiontec, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/07/1953217 ^^^^^^^^ ------ Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website (http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html [actiontec.com]), I see the following: GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products: Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the MI424WR Products. List of modules: busybox-0.50 Release Date Filename 11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's there. So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon? ------ Actiontec has made available the source code long before the lawsuit against Verizon. More to the point: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf (SFLC's complaint) "The License permits a licensee to distribute BusyBox, or works based on BusyBox, in object code or executable form, on the condition that the licensee gives recipients access to the source code corresponding to what they distribute. [...] Upon information and belief, Verizon distributes to its customers the Actiontec MI424WR wireless router (Infringing Product), which contains embedded executable software (Firmware). Defendant also provides the Firmware corresponding to the Infringing Product for download via its website, at http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp. [...] Defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs notice and continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in violation of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act." Now let's visit that link once again: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and witness that there's still no word about the GPL and/or source code on that web page of Verizon. Care to explain that, GNUtian dak? > > As long as Verizon stays in compliance with the settlement terms, yes, > the court will not hear the case again. > > So what? SFLC self nuked ("with prejudice") and Verizon "continues to distribute the Infringing Products and Firmware in violation of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act" in the same manner as Verizon did it at the time and before SFLC filing their idiotic complaint, stupid. You must have real fun playing an utter idiot, GNUtian dak. [1] a) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(law)> "Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a civil claim for the breach. In cases where confidentiality is required by the parties, the court order may refer to another document which is not disclosed, but which may be revealed to prove a breach of the settlement." And what the court "rolled into a court order" in Verizon case is this: http://www.terekhov.de/GPLvVerizon/VOLUNTARY_DISMISSAL.pdf ("WITH PREJUDICE") not a settlement. b) From the United states Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where SFLC resides and likes to file their idiotic complaints (just to dismiss voluntary and even with prejudice against own clients shortly after filing initial complaint): "It provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title." 17 U.S.C. sec. 411(a); see also 17 U.S.C. sec. 501.1 Whether this requirement is jurisdictional is not up for debate in this Circuit. On two recent occasions, we have squarely held that it is."; In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation; Nos. 05-5943-cv(L), 06-0223-cv(CON)(2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2007). http://infotechlawpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/01/second-circuit-vacates-settlement-of.html (Second Circuit Vacates Settlement...) b) From SFLC's "lawyers": "You do not need to register to enforce your copyright. " http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html LOL regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
