"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Rjack wrote:
Verizon told them to kiss their ass and the only result was a voluntary
dismissal WITH PREJUDICE. Hasn't Alexander taught you anything at all?
Verizon provides a download link for firmware for routers manufactured
by Actiontec. Actiontec makes the GPLed sources available. The Verizon
URL contains the words "actiontec gateway", and without knowing the
details of what is going on at Verizon, it is difficult to say whether
Verizon is violating the GPL or not, and whether it is doing so in a way
that a court would find problematic.
This is a very slim hope to hang GPL opposition upon.
The central issue seems to be whether the statutory issues in the copyright
laws apply in the absence of any financial harm to the author(s). That was
the issue with the Jacobsen vs Katzer case and is the central prop for the
GPL as well In terms of a contract issue, there is a possible lack of
consideration involved if the user can copy and distribute a work at no
cost. The circuit court ruled more or less in favor of the GPL et al when
it said that there could be important considerations outside of mere money
and so the district court could not dismiss the request for an injunction on
the basis that there was no money involved and hence no harm. The district
court then dismissed the injunction on the basis that the plaintiff had not
shown that there was any non-monetary harm either and pointed to a Supreme
Court opinion that has modified the Draconian terms of some of the
previously held copyright doctrines.
This same reasoning is applicable to the GPL and brings up the notion of
whether the GPL requirements are out of balance with the benefits presumably
provided.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
