"Hyman Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
See also:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
Yes, please do:
(l) Other Defenses Not Affected.— The failure of a
service provider’s conduct to qualify for limitation
of liability under this section shall not bear
adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the
service provider that the service provider’s conduct
is not infringing under this title or any other defense.
As I said, the question is whether the "actiontec gateway" URL
on the Verizon page causes an obligation to Verizon under the
GPL when a user downloads software through it.
Because you dislike the GPL, you would like the answer to that
question to be "yes", although in a convoluted form - you would
like to believe that no such obligation truly exists, but you
want GPL advocates to believe that it does - so that Verizon can
be said to be violating the GPL with impunity while the SFLC is
too timid to pursue them. But there is no evidence for this.
You ignore the rather obvious fact that Verizon is distributing binary code
for the routers from its own website to anyone and everyone who wants it
without regard to the requirements of the GPL that this binary code be
accompanied by the source that created it. Whether or not the SFLC is timid
seems to be of no consequence since they abandoned their suit against
Verizon regarding this sort of conduct with predjudice.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
