Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Alan Mackenzie]

Would you format your paragraphs properly in future, please?

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:

> So they [SFLC] didn't suddenly "become aware" of anything at all.  They
> just became suddenly aware that they were out to lunch on the law and
> were about to have their case tossed out of court, so they surrendered,
> begging Verizon to not make an issue of things and probably paying for
> Verizon's costs.  It was a total loss.

That's not the way the SFLC sees it.  On
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/17/busybox-verizon/ we have:

    As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
    reinstate Actiontec's and its customer's rights to distribute BusyBox
    under the GPL, Actiontec has agreed to appoint an Open Source
    Compliance Officer within its organization to monitor and ensure GPL
    compliance, to publish the source code for the version of BusyBox it
    previously distributed on its Web site, and to undertake substantial
    efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox from Actiontec and
    its customers, including Verizon, of their rights to the software
    under the GPL. The settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
    financial consideration paid to the plaintiffs by Actiontec.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).