Hyman Rosen wrote:
amicus_curious wrote:
Even though Verizon is openly distributing a product that
contains GPL licensed software, they do not provide the source.
If it's the routers themselves, then if Verizon buys them from
Actiontec and distributes them to customers, they do not need to
follow the GPL because of first sale. I don't have one of these
routers, so I don't know whether the router itself comes in the
box with the proper GPL notification.
If it's the firmware link, then it's not clear that Verizon is
copying the software in a way that the law would interpret as
requiring separate copyright permission - there's an "actiontec
gateway" involved, and I don't even know if it has been settled
as to which party violates copyright when a download is
requested.
The SDLC sued Verizon originally to make this happen, but then
offered a dismissal (with predjudice) to vacate the suit. That
is fleeing the field, no matter what motivation you want to
impute to the SDLC.
The way I would interpret this is that once the SFLC began
dealing with Verizon and Actiontec, they became privy to more
detailed information
Yeah, "more detailed" alright. . . like the BusyBox alleged authors
had no registered copyrights? Even the lowliest ambulance chaser in
the Second Circuit would know to check the Copyright Office for
registration and that an author has no standing to sue for copyright
infringement without registered copyrights.
than they had from the outside, and decided that having Actiontec
provide the GPLed sources was sufficient.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
