Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Copyright_Directive
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML>
(27) The mere provision of physical facilities for enabling
or making a communication does not in itself amount to
communication within the meaning of this Directive.
Since Verizon provides a link to an "actiontec gateway" URL,
it can easily be argues that it's Actiontec, not Verizon, who
is making the software available.
You never lose do you Hymen? You just mooooooove the goalposts.
Verizon told the SFLC to kiss their R-O-Y-A-L P-U-R-P-L-E A-S-S and
the SFLC complied by filing a F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)1 voluntary dismissal
W-I-T-H P-R-E-D-J-U-D-I-C-E.
Clearly, the SFLC beleieves
so, since it is satisfied with having Actiontec provide the
GPLed sources.
Yeh. . . especially since it ain't got no friggin' choice.
You should stop attempting to spin the BusyBox cases and polish your
tale as to why the SFLC will fail to get the GPL enforced on its
merits in the Cisco case.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
