Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:oTEnl.22788$uG1.3927@newsfe16.iad...
> amicus_curious wrote:
> > No one wants to have to bother with that.
>
> No one likes to pay money for software either, and the BSA
> goes after companies who fail to do so without worrying
> about sullying the good name of proprietary software.
They get some real money, too.  That is because the proprietary software has 
some value, whereas a copy of a superceded source tree for BusyBox is 
worthless.

> > There is absolutely no benefit to anyone for having Verizon
> > put some obscure crap on their website.
>
> Verizon appears to think it necessary to provide a link to
> Actiontec's firmware. If it's necessary to provide binaries,
> it's good for users' freedom to provide source.
That is a link to Actiontec's firmware for firmware updates.  That has some 
use, whereas a source for BusyBox version 0.5 hardly satisfies anyone's 
need.  Verizon does not provide such a link, BTW.

> > That gives FOSS a bad name.  Who wants to use stuff like that
> > and risk getting bitten by the looney tunes that think software
> > is some kind of religious experience?
>
> That has a simple answer - every single company who has been sued
> by the SFLC and has agreed to comply with the GPL instead of stopping
> distribution of GPLed software.

But not Verizon.  They never agreed to anything.