[News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead - Linux ; BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit ,----[ Quote ] | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement | lawsuit ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

  1. [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
    | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
    | lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox.
    `----

    http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...on-settlement/

    And Just Like That, The Games End — First Ever GPL Lawsuit Dismissed

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In the agreement to dismiss the lawsuit, the SFLC is reporting that Monsoon
    | Multimedia has agreed to appoint an “Open Source Compliance Officer” within
    | its organization “to monitor and ensure GPL compliance, to publish the source
    | code for the version of BusyBox it previously distributed on its web site,
    | and to undertake substantial efforts to notify previous recipients of BusyBox
    | from Monsoon Multimedia of their rights to the software under the GPL.
    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Stay tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here
    | in the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL.
    `----

    http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/20...uit-dismissed/


    Related:

    SFLC: Setting Legal Precedent Not the Goal of GPL Case

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Software Freedom Law Center co-founder Dan Ravicher says the Center’s
    | copyright infringement case against Monsoon Multimedia on behalf of the *
    | creators of BusyBox is not about setting legal precedent for the use and
    | interpretation of the GNU General Public License. *
    `----

    http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=241


    GPL defenders say: See you in court

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The license also requires anyone distributing GPL software, in an executable
    | form that a computer can run, to make the complete source code available. One
    | example: Cisco Systems subsidiary Linksys, which *shares the GPL software
    | used in its wireless networking equipment. *
    `----

    http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-sa...3-6210837.html


    First U.S. GPL lawsuit heads for quick settlement

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick
    | out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had
    | violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will
    | release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license. *
    `----

    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html


    New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "A paper to be presented at the upcoming academic conference Automated
    | Software Engineering describes a new method to detect code theft and could be
    | used to detect GPL violations in particular. While the co-called birthmarking *
    | method is demonstrated for Java, it is general enough to work for other
    | languages as well..." *
    `----

    http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...48253&from=rss


    German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
    | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
    | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that. *
    `----

    http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/0...#comment-27057


    German GPL defender claims legal victory
    *
    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Open-source programmer Harald Welte said Thursday he won a civil court
    | case in Germany centered on the General Public License (GPL). The license
    | governs many open-source projects and permits anyone to use software
    | covered by it, but requires that companies incorporating GPL software
    | make the underlying source code available.
    `----

    http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-611...3453&subj=news


    gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | D-Link Germany GmbH, a subsidiary of D-Link Corporation, Taiwan R.O.C.,
    | distributed DSM-G600, a network attached storage (NAS) device which uses a
    | Linux-based Operating System. *However, this distribution was incompliant
    | with the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers the Linux Kernel and
    | many other software programs used in the product.
    `----

    http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060...frankfurt.html


    Wallace's Appeal Firmly Rejected - GPL Has Nothing to Fear [pdf]

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | PJ: "Just so you know, Daniel Wallace's appeal of the ruling
    | against him in his pro se quest to overthrow the GPL on antitrust
    | grounds, one of SCO's daydreams too, has been firmly rejected by
    | the appeals court, as I knew it would be."
    `----

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceAppealRejected.pdf


    Would Dostoevsky Use the GPL?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I get nervous whenever large software shops talk up the virtues of a license
    | with fewer protections of developer and user rights. In the linked articles
    | above, there is talk of permissive licenses being the path of least
    | resistance, with the premise that it's "easier" to gravitate towards them. My
    | question is - easier for whom? Easier for the developers or easier for the
    | companies who wish to make use of it without those annoying obligations to
    | the greater free software ecosystem? As is often mentioned by others smarter
    | than me, a scenario where developers gravitate towards permissive licenses
    | makes it easier for companies to avoid community reciprocity. * * * *
    `----

    http://tinosc.blogspot.com/2007/09/w...y-use-gpl.html

  2. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    On Oct 31, 4:42 am, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:
    > BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit


    I'm curious - were here any preliminary rulings prior to the
    settlement?

    Often, a defendant will ask the judge for preliminary rulings on
    points of law before deciding on a settlement approach. If the judge
    says "yes, you broke the law", in the preliminary ruling, there is no
    need to procede with the case, only to determine how to properly
    comply.

    In most cases, compliance is pretty simple. Make sure your
    proprietary code calls LGPL shared libraries (or other GPL compatible
    shared libraries, then have those shared libraries call the GPL code.
    Conversely, you can have the GPL code call proprietary shared
    libraries as "plug-ins".

    Many of those who have published the noncritical portions of their
    source code have been surprised at how helpful the Linux community can
    be. Linksys published their source code and OSS contributors provided
    new code for things like adding SAN storage to routers via a USB port
    or hub.

    The OSS solution to DRM is to publish the source with a license which
    provides source code but forbids modifications of elements related to
    legal compliance - such as DRM or patent related code. This was the
    solution that made it possible to view DVDs on Linux.

    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
    > | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
    > | lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...-monsoon-settl...
    >
    > And Just Like That, The Games End - First Ever GPL Lawsuit Dismissed
    > http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/20...ike-that-the-g...
    >
    > Related:
    >
    > SFLC: Setting Legal Precedent Not the Goal of GPL Case
    > http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/osb/?p=241
    >
    > GPL defenders say: See you in court
    > http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-sa...2100-7344_3-62...
    >
    > First U.S. GPL lawsuit heads for quick settlement
    > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3761924232.html
    >
    > New Method To Detect and Prove GPL Violations
    > http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...48253&from=rss
    >
    > German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
    > | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
    > | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
    > `----
    > http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/0...onvicted-skype...


    This may have also been significant. A well worded judgement in this
    case would have had an impact on international copyright law. In this
    case, the Judge would have been upholding the license provisions of
    international copyright law. For the U.S. Judge to ignore this ruling
    would have been "activist", judges legislating from the bench.

    One can argue whether there should be restrictions on what can be
    required in a copyright license, for example terms which require the
    end-user to commit criminal acts, but under current US and
    International Law, there are very few legal restrictions on what can
    be required in a copyright license.

    Altering this would mean the immediate collapse of Microsoft.


  3. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses ComplianceInstead

    quoting rjack:

    : The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US
    : federal court. After the plaintiff's filed a voluntary Motion to Dismiss
    : it was inevitable that GPL supporters would trumpet "the GPL won in
    : court". Magnanimous claims without the GPL so much as being read by a
    : judge -- same old, tired FSF FUD story -- just a different day.

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    > BusyBox Developers and Monsoon Multimedia Agree to Dismiss GPL Lawsuit
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Monsoon Multimedia today jointly
    > | announced that an agreement has been reached to dismiss the GPL enforcement
    > | lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of two principal developers of BusyBox.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/...on-settlement/


    SFLC's pretense that plaintiffs can somehow "reinstate Monsoon
    Multimedia's rights" (suggesting that Monsoon somehow lost something)
    all by virtue of the copyright law, is not quite FUD but rather utter
    legal nonsense.

    Moglen made an attempt to trigger "automatic termination" in MySQL
    case:

    "Given my knowledge of the practices of programming and the
    requirements of the GPL, I concluded that the license violation was
    intentional. Whether intentional or not, any violation of the GPL
    results under 4 in a termination of the right to redistribute. ...
    Under GPL 4, I conclude, Progress Software Corp. lost the right to
    distribute MySQL when it distributed NuSphere MySQL Advantage in a
    fashion that violated GPL.

    I declare under penalty of perjury and upon personal knowledge that
    the foregoing is true and correct. "

    http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html

    (and Bruce Perens even "predicted" that "Moglen will get his
    injunction" http://www.linux.com/articles/21439)

    but Moglen's attempt failed miserably:

    "I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of the
    Gemini source code in July 2001 didn't cure the breach."

    http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opi...20software.pdf

    Monsoon settlement adds nothing new to horrible track record of
    GPL enforcement in courts.

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

    -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

  4. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    On Oct 31, 4:42 am, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:
    > German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
    > | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
    > | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
    > `----


    I did a little digging on this one and I'm not sure I agree with the
    judge on this one. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that Skype
    violated the license by not including the actual source code with the
    packaging.

    Skype's response was that they provide a URL in the handset's
    documentation showing the location of the source code to the site.
    This is a common practice among most Linux appliance manufacturers and
    satisfies the requirements of the standard GPL licenses (all 3
    versions). The publisher is required to make the source code
    available. This can be either providing the source on media, or
    providing a location from which the source can be freely downloaded.

    Skype didn't even try to challenge the requirement that the source
    code be published, they just didn't want to have to deal with the
    extra cost of putting a CD or DVD in with each of their little
    handsets. Remember, these packages are manufactured on an assembly
    line and they would have to set up a whole line of robots to produce
    the disks, package them, and insert them with the other packaging. It
    could increase the cost by as much as $10 per item.

    Supporting documentation provided by the Free Software Foundation
    points out that providing the location where the source code can be
    freely downloaded is a perfectly legitimate form of distribution.

    > http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/0...onvicted-skype...


    Let's hope that Skype wins the appeal, because otherwise it could have
    a chilling effect on the popularity of the GPL in Europe.



  5. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead


    "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    news:47287FFB.F9F09CB@web.de...

    >
    > Monsoon settlement adds nothing new to horrible track record of
    > GPL enforcement in courts.
    >


    Until a settlement or a judge's ruling has an adverse financial impact on a
    GPL violator's business, the GPL will not have been tested. The notion of
    suing people to force them to publish original or even modified source with
    no commercial value is rather pointless, since the source is so readily
    available from others.. The day that a company has to release source and
    project build information for a product that it had built up a successful
    business in regard to selling the binary code licenses has not yet arrived.


  6. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead


    Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    > On Oct 31, 4:42 am, Roy Schestowitz
    > wrote:
    > > German Court convicted Skype of violating the GPL
    > >
    > > ,----[ Quote ]
    > > | German district court Munich has convicted Skype of violating the GPL. One of
    > > | the VoIP telephones sold by Skype run Linux, but the GPL text was not handed
    > > | out together with the phone, although the GPL requires that.
    > > `----


    The morons from the German district court Munich I should better
    learn what "first sale" ("copyright exhaustion" in EU speak) is
    about. To quote Appellate Judge Hoeren from the Copyright Senate
    of Dsseldorf Court of Appeals,

    http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/fe...3_20040903.pdf

    "The ignorance of the Munich court as to the opinio communis can
    also be demonstrated in connection with the problem of exhaustion.
    If the GPL is regarded to be binding even in cases of the transfer
    of software to a third person, the concept of exhaustion might be
    violated. The European Software Directive has provided that the
    exhaustion of the copy of a program is applied Community-wide by
    a first sale of that copy in the Community with the consent of the
    right-holder; once an author has sold a copy of a work, he or she
    loses the exclusive distribution right with respect to that work.
    A contractual limitation of this principle is held to be invalid,
    at least in Germany and Austria. The Munich court obviously did
    not know of these developments; instead it simply stated that the
    German copyright legislator had once expressed its support for
    Open Source. However, this support has been given only in other
    legislative debates regarding mandatory rights of creators to
    adequate remuneration. But even if the legislator generally likes
    Open Source, it does not at all mean that the legislator supports
    and considers every rule of the GPL as legally effective."

    http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8939845710.html

    "In response to inquiries regarding a German court's ruling that
    Skype had breached the GPL, the company told LinuxDevices.com
    today that it "has not acted improperly." The alleged violation
    was associated with the method by which Skype "distributed" GPL-
    licensed source code with a Linux-powered VoIP handset.

    A July 24 posting by Dr. Julia Kueng on the website of the
    Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source reported
    that Gpl-violations.org, a Germany-based group headed by software
    developer Harald Welte had recently prevailed in a lawsuit it
    brought against Skype for allegedly violating an aspect of the
    GNU GPL (GNU General Public License).

    The violation reportedly involved the manner in which Skype
    distributed a third-party product, a VoIP handset with an
    embedded Linux kernel and supplied by SMC Networks as model
    WSKP100 (depicted on the right). The suit alleged that Skype
    failed to supply a copy both of the source code and of the GPL
    license itself -- as required by the GPL -- along with the
    handset to its purchasers.

    Skype reportedly defended itself against the suit by noting
    that URLs provided within the handsets' documentation pointed
    customers to where they could download both the GPL and the
    relevant source code. According to Dr. Kueng, the German court
    denied the sufficiency of Skype's defense, and ruled that Skype
    had breached section 3 of the GPL.

    In an email received this morning by LinuxDevices.com, Imogen
    Bailey, director of global PR, stated:

    "Skype is surprised by the recent decision and believes that it
    has not acted improperly. At this time, we cannot comment further
    because Skype is considering its options in relation to appealing
    this regional judgment."

    According to Dr. Kueng's posting, SMC Networks -- which
    manufacturers the WSKP100 -- is the target of a similar case that
    remains to be decided."

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

    -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

  7. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    ____/ Rex Ballard on Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:54 : \____

    > For the U.S. Judge to ignore this ruling
    > would have been "activist", judges legislating from the bench.


    Don't forget the Wallace case in the US. /That/ must have established some kind
    of constitutional validity as well.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "My signature is never intended to be offensive"
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Swap: 1510068k total, 247716k used, 1262352k free, 105720k cached
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

  8. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead


    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    [...]
    > Don't forget the Wallace case in the US. /That/ must have established some kind
    > of constitutional validity as well.


    Wallace case established that

    1.) [FOSS contributors can't charge -- no software commerce] "Thus
    the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision:
    neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or
    improved version, may charge for the software or allow any
    successor to charge. ... Linux and other open-source projects have
    been able to cover their fixed costs through donations of time"

    and

    2.) [FOSS is junk] "People willingly pay for quality software even
    when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is
    a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and
    presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has
    many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the
    proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion's share of the market."

    and

    3.) [FOSS is doomed] "The number of proprietary operating systems
    is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues
    quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future
    availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots."

    EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
    Circuit.

    Ha! "The number of proprietary operating systems is growing..."

    Judge Easterbrook sure got that one right. By simply querying any
    software outlet for their vast selection of proprietary operating
    systems aside from Linux (to wit: Windows and OS X) we know
    competition is flourishing. No need to ever contemplate antitrust
    charges against Microsoft again!

    I wonder where Judge Easterbrook shops for his software...

    FOSS advocates danced in the street with the Wallace v. IBM et al
    ruling... utterly oblivious to the fact that it was the best
    antitrust news that Microsoft had heard in years. Thanks in part
    to Easterbrook's ruling, Microsoft can now threaten FOSS without
    worrying about the DOJ.

    Sleep easy Steve and Bill there IS a tooth fairy. :-)

    [end quoting Wallace]

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

    -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

  9. Rex Ballard: citations please ..

    Rex Ballard wrote:

    Citations please for these statements of yours ...

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...d44043ede488d8

  10. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead


    "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message
    news:472886A7.5F8123EE@web.de...
    >
    >
    > A July 24 posting by Dr. Julia Kueng on the website of the
    > Institute for Legal Questions on Free and Open Source reported
    > that Gpl-violations.org, a Germany-based group headed by software
    > developer Harald Welte had recently prevailed in a lawsuit it
    > brought against Skype for allegedly violating an aspect of the
    > GNU GPL (GNU General Public License).
    >
    > The violation reportedly involved the manner in which Skype
    > distributed a third-party product, a VoIP handset with an
    > embedded Linux kernel and supplied by SMC Networks as model
    > WSKP100 (depicted on the right). The suit alleged that Skype
    > failed to supply a copy both of the source code and of the GPL
    > license itself -- as required by the GPL -- along with the
    > handset to its purchasers.
    >
    > Skype reportedly defended itself against the suit by noting
    > that URLs provided within the handsets' documentation pointed
    > customers to where they could download both the GPL and the
    > relevant source code. According to Dr. Kueng, the German court
    > denied the sufficiency of Skype's defense, and ruled that Skype
    > had breached section 3 of the GPL.
    >
    > In an email received this morning by LinuxDevices.com, Imogen
    > Bailey, director of global PR, stated:
    >
    > "Skype is surprised by the recent decision and believes that it
    > has not acted improperly. At this time, we cannot comment further
    > because Skype is considering its options in relation to appealing
    > this regional judgment."
    >
    > According to Dr. Kueng's posting, SMC Networks -- which
    > manufacturers the WSKP100 -- is the target of a similar case that
    > remains to be decided."
    >

    Another red herring/tempest in a teapot. What telepone user would ever be
    moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone in order to
    make it more efficient and be thwarted in that task by not having Skype
    deliver a set of source files?


  11. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >What telepone user would ever be
    >moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone


    Dumb****. It's not only users, but producers, who may be interested
    in the code.


  12. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses ComplianceInstead

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > Until a settlement or a judge's ruling has an adverse financial impact on a GPL violator's business, the GPL will not have been tested ..


    Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.

    "As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
    reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the
    GPL, Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance
    Officer .. the settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of
    financial consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs"

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...71030130750322

  13. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> Until a settlement (snip)

    >
    > Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.


    Exactly. Why he thinks he can lie like a rug one day, and get taken
    seriously the next, is beyond me.

    --
    "Why would you suggest a non-perfect solution?"
    - Erik Funkenbusch


  14. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:fgah27$ita$3@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> Until a settlement or a judge's ruling has an adverse financial impact on
    >> a GPL violator's business, the GPL will not have been tested ..

    >
    > Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.
    >
    > "As a result of the plaintiffs agreeing to dismiss the lawsuit and
    > reinstate Monsoon Multimedia's rights to distribute BusyBox under the GPL,
    > Monsoon Multimedia has agreed to appoint an Open Source Compliance Officer
    > .. the settlement also includes an undisclosed amount of financial
    > consideration paid by Monsoon Multimedia to the plaintiffs"
    >
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...71030130750322


    I said "on a GPL violator's business", silly. Paying legal fees or such
    isn't anything but a lawyer enrichment scheme played in the courts.


  15. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:cm9hi3dapfm2hsbc1hudqk64rgss1ijstp@4ax.com...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>What telepone user would ever be
    >>moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone

    >
    > Dumb****. It's not only users, but producers, who may be interested
    > in the code.
    >

    And someone interested in the Linux OS needs to get it from Skype? You
    would have to be a dumb**** yourself to think that way.


  16. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Until a settlement (snip)

    >>
    >> Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.

    >
    > Exactly. Why he thinks he can lie like a rug one day, and get taken
    > seriously the next, is beyond me.


    I blame Ghost in the Machine.

    > --
    > "Why would you suggest a non-perfect solution?"
    > - Erik Funkenbusch


    Arroo?

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    ____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 31 October 2007 21:29 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
    >
    >> | Stay tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will
    >> | see here in the U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL.
    >> | `----

    >
    > It would've been better had it gone to court, at least that would've set
    > a legal precedent. Oh well, it'll happen eventually.


    'However, for those looking for legal precedent, all may not be lost. “Stay
    tuned, however, as this is likely not the last lawsuit we will see here in the
    U.S. to enforce the terms of the GPL,” notes Haislmaier.'

    http://blogs.the451group.com/opensou...d-opportunity/


    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Swap: 1510068k total, 220280k used, 1289788k free, 83580k cached
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

  18. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:36:54 GMT
    :
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Until a settlement (snip)
    >>>
    >>> Says who, apart from you, whos opinions don'n count for anything.

    >>
    >> Exactly. Why he thinks he can lie like a rug one day, and get taken
    >> seriously the next, is beyond me.

    >
    > I blame Ghost in the Machine.


    ObHuh: Did I miss something here? :-P

    I personally like to lie over the top for humorous
    effect. :-) But that's just me.

    >
    >> --
    >> "Why would you suggest a non-perfect solution?"
    >> - Erik Funkenbusch

    >
    > Arroo?
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    GNU and improved.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  19. Re: Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses Compliance Instead

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >"chrisv" wrote in message
    >news:cm9hi3dapfm2hsbc1hudqk64rgss1ijstp@4ax.com...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>What telepone user would ever be
    >>>moved to wonder about how to re-write the OS of his Skype phone

    >>
    >> Dumb****. It's not only users, but producers, who may be interested
    >> in the code.
    >>

    >And someone interested in the Linux OS needs to get it from Skype?


    The issue is Skype's code, not "the Linux OS", dumb****.


  20. Re: [News] Company Refuses to Fight Against the GPL, Chooses ComplianceInstead

    clone of fuddie amicus_curious wrote:

    > I said "on a GPL violator's business", silly


    That's the bits where you a) were dishonest and b) still don't count.
    You see, an anonymous WinTROLL don't get to define what is or is not a
    valid test of the GPL ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast