| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FSF, OSI and BusyboxFSF, OSI and BusyboxPosted Dec 14, 2008 11:56 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: FSF, OSI and Busybox by ballombe Parent article: The FSF raises the stakes for Cisco It is irrelevant to the present case, but not to the wider issue of copyright violations: Landley has some experience in the matter. Just as Harald Welte, who as kragil noted in the news item also knows a thing or two about violations), and he is quite more sympathetic to the lawsuit: So the FSF's decision to take this problem to court is the most appropriate response that one can think of.It is always interesting to know what knowledgeable people think about an issue, IMHO. That's why I wonder whether Landley's opinion is isolated (and maybe driven by his contract with Cisco).
(Log in to post comments)
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Dec 14, 2008 13:48 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I don't think it's driven by his contact with Cisco. I think it's driven
by his, to be frank, irrationally intense dislike of the FSF and all its doings. Threatening his meal ticket was just an intensifier.
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Dec 14, 2008 15:18 UTC (Sun) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
He also seems pretty pissed that they didn't tell him before filing. What?!
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Dec 14, 2008 15:30 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I can see two possibilities here, both completely bizarre:
- they didn't know Cisco was his employer, in which case there's no
- they did know Cisco was his employer, in which case they'd surely not
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Dec 19, 2008 22:25 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] they'd surely not tell him and give his employer advance notice of a pending suit. Why wouldn't they want Cisco to have advance notice of the lawsuit? I assume they told Cisco clearly multiple times that they intended to sue (hoping Cisco would respond by making it unnecessary). Legal process isn't like war.
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Jan 13, 2009 2:05 UTC (Tue) by darkonc (guest, #14197) [Link]
Once you pass the process off to the lawyers, a lot of analogies between war and the legal system hold true. You have a pretty-much no-holds-barred system there the point is to win 'at all costs'. You have exorbitant costs and commonly many innocent victims.
The list could go on....
> Legal process isn't like war.
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Jan 13, 2009 4:31 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] You have a pretty-much no-holds-barred system there the point is to win 'at all costs' The legal process I know isn't anything like that. First of all, most holds are barred. There are rules that fill books, and a referee always there to ensure only the most sportsmanlike holds are used. And in civil court, few litigants are interested in winning at all costs. In fact, most cases people would like to win don't even become lawsuits because the minimum cost of winning would exceed the payoff. I don't think a surprise lawsuit is anything like a surprise attack anyway. Imagine a military attack where you suddenly inform the enemy that you're going to bomb him as soon as he's had time to prepare a thorough defense, including getting from you all the details of what kind of bomb you will drop and where. That's what a surprise lawsuit would be.
FSF, OSI and Busybox Posted Dec 14, 2008 17:27 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] It is irrelevant to the present case, but not to the wider issue of copyright violations The only thing I found somewhat relevant is the mention of Linksys as a model citizen on the BusyBox license page. All in all it very much sounds like a "Sue anyone except my friends" model, which is not uncommon I guess. The rest of Landley's rambling is simply personal stuff that I found unpleasant and uninteresting to read.
|
|
||||||||||||