Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> 
> "Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
> news:gnncnr$vod$1@blue.rahul.net...
>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:

>>>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?

>> There is a lot of truth in what you wrote, and it's not specific to free
>> software. Enforcement of copyright (and patents) often gives the
>> enforcer a bad name.

> I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the 
> enforcement of meaningless requirements.  If the RIAA pinches some 
> downloader, they get a few thousand bucks or more in return.  That, at 
> least, makes some sense as to why the RIAA is being so diligent.  But just 
> having another unvisited site for some out of date source code is hardly 
> worth the time and effort of the courts to go along on this ego trip.

It's hardly meaningless.  It means the source code is available.  

> Surely no one in their right mind would use the Actiontec site as a
> source for BusyBox, they would go the the BusyBox project site for the
> latest fixes. 

They're likely to want the source of the version embedded in their
Actiontec box.  For example, to diagnose a problem, or to complain
about its out-of-dateness, or to check it for security problems.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).