"David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
"Rahul Dhesi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
Well that subject line was long ago. What I am saying is the the SFLC
and
its client BusyBox are just wasting the world's time. Perhaps they have
a
legal right to do that, but it is still nonsense and at the end of the
day
they will be remembered as being egotistical fools who just wasted the
people's time.
A lot of time is often wasted any time somebody disrespects somebody
else's copyright. Litigation is usually costly.
The companies misappropriating GPL software are thus causing a lot of
time and effort to be expended. If they respected the copyrights of
software authors, all of this discussion would be unnecesary.
Or if the authors weren't such egomaniacs, they could just ignore the
situation and be happy that someone else thought enough of their
creation to use it themselves.
Again you are confused. It is the BSD license style that cares about
attribution. The copyleft licenses care about keeping the software
alive and in fully useful form for the device in question, at the users'
disposition.
Again, you miss the point. For the BusyBox lawsuits there is no issue about
keeping the softwae alive. It is being used and BusyBox has a site where
anyone can go and obtain it. None of the defendants in these cases made the
slightest alteration to BusyBox, so having to publish the source only
affects attribution. Do you seriously think that anyone who might want to
use BusyBox would first find out about it from Actiontec and then rely on
Actiontec for source? That is silly.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
