"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Rjack wrote:
People are not supposed to believe their own eyes when they read the
> complaint and prayer for relief. Instead they are supposed to believe
> what some delusional GNU fan claims the SFLC *really* claims.
You have confused which side of this argument is delusional,
I'm afraid. The SFLC files suit as if the violating party has
simply chosen to infringe the copyrights of their clients.
Clumsy wording at best. What does it mean?
The SFLC has filed suit against several of the very few companies that use
Linux embedded in their products. The purpose of the open source license is
to encourage more people to use Linux, but the actions of the SFLC make that
a dicey proposition resulting in harassment and even some economic loss.
Don't you see where that is a tad counterproductive? The SFLC is more
fearsome of a Linux useage opponent than Microsoft.
If you would like to see what the SFLC *really* claims, it's easy
enough - read the web site of their clients:
<http://www.busybox.net/license.html>
Our enforcement efforts are aimed at bringing people into
compliance with the BusyBox license.
...
We don't want monetary awards, injunctions, or to generate bad
PR for a company, unless that's the only way to get somebody that
repeatedly ignores us to comply with the license on our code.
Are we supposed to believe the delusional rantings of GPL skeptics,
or the statements of the actual plaintiffs to the suit?
Well the court filings are a better source. Apparently the SFLC received
nothing from Verizon and there was nothing in any settlement for the courts
to monitor as per the usual practice. The SFLC tries to save face, but they
just look silly to the world. Let us see what happens with Cisco.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
