amicus_curious wrote:
When none of the elements of a lawsuit are attained, I call that a loss.
The purpose of the FSF is to promote software that users may run, read, modify, and share. For a significant period of time before the SFLC filed its suit, Verizon was distributing FiOS routers with GPLed code in violation of the GPL. After the case ended, Verizon is now complying with the GPL, and users of its routers may run, read, modify, and share the software it contains. On <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/>, the SFLC says that SFLC defends the integrity of FOSS licenses against both adverse judicial interpretation and legislative interference. SFLC accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US copyrights and coordinates international copyright enforcement efforts of represented works as necessary. SFLC also assists clients and the general FOSS community in resolution of disputes relating to the use and development of FOSS. They defend copyrights. They do that through the normal litigation process, which always involves maxing maximalist claims. Their defense of the copyrights has worked so far, and therefore they may properly claim victory. > Verizon thumbed their noses at the GPL and nothing happened to them. Verizon now properly complies with the GPL, just as they are required to do if they wish to distribute GPLed software. The Verizon-branded manual <http://www.actiontec.com/support_cms/doc_files/MI424WR_Rev._ACD_User_Manual_4.0.16.1.56.0.10.11.3_v6.pdf> contains a GPL section, and the router comes with a GPL software disk. You may believe that this constitutes Verizon thumbing its nose, but people who are not warped by their unreasoning dislike of the GPL will have a rather different opinion. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
