Alexander Terekhov wrote:
What say you now, Hyman?
I say that companies which distribute software licensed under the GPL must comply with the terms of the GPL where copyright would not otherwise permit them to do this. The SFLC acts on behalf of clients who claim that their software is being distributed improperly. After each case brought by the SFLC has ended, the source code of the GPLed software has been made available (in the Verizon case, by the manufacturer of the routers). In some cases, the companies involved have agreed to take some additional steps to help them stay in compliance. In some cases, money may have changed hands. The amounts are not public knowledge, nor should they be. I have no idea what you think you're getting at by these repetitions. I have no idea what situation it is you feel that I have failed to grasp. I know that in my cursory research of the Verizon/Actiontec case I saw that Actiontec was distributing GPLed software for a long time before they began distributing the sources. I assume the same was true for the other companies. The companies are asked to comply with the GPL and eventually they do and the cases end. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss