| |||||||||||||
LWN lists the plaintiff wrong.LWN lists the plaintiff wrong.Posted Aug 3, 2010 21:01 UTC (Tue) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)Parent article: BusyBox and the GPL Prevail Again (Groklaw)
The lwn article says it's "SFLC v. Best Buy". it's actually "Conservancy v. Best Buy, et al". In this case, SFLC acts as lawyers to plaintiffs in the matter. The plaintiffs are "Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc." and "Erik Andersen".
(Log in to post comments)
LWN lists the plaintiff wrong. Posted Aug 3, 2010 21:11 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Hey, who are you going to trust...LWN or this "bkuhn" guy?Oh...OK...fixed...sorry for the confusion.
LWN lists the plaintiff wrong. Posted Aug 4, 2010 17:39 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_M._Kuhn
(for those who don't immediately recognize the name)
"Best Buy" as defendant Posted Aug 4, 2010 20:17 UTC (Wed) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]
Was Best Buy a defendant (I'm not sure if "defendant" or "respondent" is correct in this case) because of its own Insignia TV's, or because selling e.g. "Westinghouse" (or Sony or Panasonic) TV's with embedded Linux makes it effectively a distributor of GPL'd software and therefore subject to the requirement to make source available?
|
|||||||||||||