|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
All that GPL does is to give you a defense against the code's
copyrights owner(s). Right, and Red Hat's mistake (although one
that should be harmless) was in even mentioning the GPL. It doesn't
apply here, so why even bring it up? Let the defendants bring it up if they
really want. It's an unnecessary complication unless the defendant wants to try
to pretend it's relevant, in which case, you show why it doesn't apply. Bottom
line, unless they complied with its terms, they were engaging in simple
copyright violation.
Basically, if Red Hat hadn't bothered to mention
the GPL, Twin Peaks would have been faced with a dilemma: bring it up
themselves, which would make them look like fools when it became clear they
hadn't read it, or simply admit they have no defense. It wouldn't help them
either way, and the latter would make this an open-and-shut
case.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them
soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
Heh... If THAT is what they're running up the flagpole...
I wouldn't want to be them. It'll end up with wilful infringement on their
parts...and in a manner that Verizon and Actiontec would've found themselves in
had they allowed it to go to court. (That's a big reason why they settled when
the rubber met the pavement- they'd have face vastly more than what they gave
up...with no room to run.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
