More BusyBox GPL Violations

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 15, 2009.

  1. Seems like BusyBox freeloaders account for the lion’s share of GPL
    violations being pursued in the courts
    <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28460>. Why do those companies let it get
    this far? You’d think that they would take seriously that initial contact
    from the lawyers, trying to get them to comply in a friendly fashion. But
    no, it seems a lot of them just ignore the issue, thinking they can just
    help themselves to the software without reciprocating in return.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Dec 15, 7:46 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Seems like BusyBox freeloaders account for the lion’s share of GPL
    > violations being pursued in the courts
    > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28460>. Why do those companies let it get
    > this far? You’d think that they would take seriously that initial contact
    > from the lawyers, trying to get them to comply in a friendly fashion. But
    > no, it seems a lot of them just ignore the issue, thinking they can just
    > help themselves to the software without reciprocating in return.


    Because they, along with Max (has GPL been tested in a NZ court?)
    Burke probably think that the GPL is a load of hooey and that a good
    IP lawyer will soon 'roll' Busybox.
    peterwn, Dec 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > On Dec 15, 7:46 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> Seems like BusyBox freeloaders account for the lion’s share of GPL
    >> violations being pursued in the courts
    >> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28460>. Why do those companies let it get
    >> this far? You’d think that they would take seriously that initial contact
    >> from the lawyers, trying to get them to comply in a friendly fashion. But
    >> no, it seems a lot of them just ignore the issue, thinking they can just
    >> help themselves to the software without reciprocating in return.

    >
    > Because they, along with Max (has GPL been tested in a NZ court?)
    > Burke probably think that the GPL is a load of hooey and that a good
    > IP lawyer will soon 'roll' Busybox.


    Perhaps they are examples of

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
    victor, Dec 15, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <8636a2ee-7f25-4897-
    >, peterwn wrote:

    > .. (has GPL been tested in a NZ court?)


    It’s been upheld in at least two trials in Germany that I’m aware of. Plus
    innumerable out-of-court settlements in the US and elsewhere, when the
    respondents’ lawyers realize they would probably lose.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 15, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-12-15, Allistar <> wrote:
    > peterwn wrote:
    >
    >> On Dec 15, 7:46 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>> Seems like BusyBox freeloaders account for the lion?s share of GPL
    >>> violations being pursued in the courts
    >>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=28460>. Why do those companies let it get
    >>> this far? You?d think that they would take seriously that initial contact
    >>> from the lawyers, trying to get them to comply in a friendly fashion. But
    >>> no, it seems a lot of them just ignore the issue, thinking they can just
    >>> help themselves to the software without reciprocating in return.

    >>
    >> Because they, along with Max (has GPL been tested in a NZ court?)

    >
    > I've heard people before ask "has the GPL been upheld in court" and I find
    > that question a bit confusing. What the question is asking is straight
    > forward enough, what I find confusing is "why is that important"? The GPL
    > is very clear, and it is protected by current copyright law.


    This is what is so clever about it, and so powerful. It uses copyright law as
    it base and then alters the conditions of what people are allowed to do. In
    fact they have to release the code if the modified code, or equipment based
    on it has been released to a third party.

    I understand that D-Link at least has walked out of the court leaving a copy
    of the modified code for the GPL folks.

    Big companies are slow to "get it" They think they can win and that these
    hippes are never going to see them in court, for half of them do not know
    where the court house is.

    I suspect that the Creative Commons liesence will have to go to court soon.
    For the same reasons. Look Mate you used my works in your product and you
    are making money from it. My work was released under a no commerical. Now
    please stop making money using my work.

    The CC liesnce is taking off. Many people are using it. Traditional
    copyright is so early last century
    Gordon, Dec 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2009-12-15 impossible <>:

    >no respect for intellectual property.


    That's because there is no such thing. Haven't you understod that by now?
    I guess not, you just suck up to the mafia at any time.
    Gunnar Gren, Dec 16, 2009
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    Lionel
    May 24, 2004
  2. FAQmeister
    Replies:
    56
    Views:
    1,449
    Hamilcar Barca
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. Bob Mahan

    CASM logMine v1.2 released under GNU GPL

    Bob Mahan, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    590
    Bob Mahan
    Nov 12, 2003
  4. woo
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,244
    Quirk E. Dude
    Dec 6, 2005
  5. thingy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    294
    steve
    Oct 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page