"Hyman Rosen" <hyro...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:597wl.128663$xk6.53...@newsfe12.iad...
amicus_curious wrote:
> Well at least we can define the FSF and SFLC as stupid. That is a
> beginning.
No, not the FSF and the SFLC. You.
Well, then the FSF is just misinformed about their strategy. They once
said, in regard to the Verizon case:
"But Ravicher claimed that both Actiontec and Verizon have to adhere to the
requirements of the GPL as distributors of BusyBox.
"When Actiontec distributes to Verizon, Actiontec has obligations," he said.
"When Verizon turns around and redistributes to customers, Verizon has
obligations. Even if Actiontec fulfills its obligations when it distributes
to Verizon, that does not fulfill Verizon's obligations when it distributes
to its customers.""
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=development&articleId=9051799&taxonomyId=11&intsrc=kc_top
Now Actiontec is indeed publishing the GPL source, but they were never sued
either. OTOH, Verizon is not publishing anything, not even a mention of the
GPL as existing, and totally thumbed their noses at the SFLC. Now they
enjoy total immunity due to the original action being dismissed with
prejudice. All achieved by not firing a single shot. Apparently Verizon no
longer has any obligations.
And you call that a success? Who are you trying to kid? Yourself?
Certainly no one else.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss