On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:20:27 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:19:07 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>
>> > Tim Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <yIidneUAEomYssHVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> rjack <robjack@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > It is most plausible that the defendants simply said to the SFLC,
>> >> > "Dismiss or we will file a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss" and collect
>> >> > our attorney fees and costs. Even an incompetent defense attorney
>> >> > would know that the SFLC pleadings are defective on their face due
>> >> > to lack of Copyright Office registration of the allegedly
>> >> > infringed works. The lack of a public settlement stipulation by
>> >> > both parties reinforces this scenario.
>> >>
>> >> Yet the source then appeared, which is what SFLC wanted.
>> >
>> > Verizon offers Busybox object code for downloading on its own web
>> > site.
>> >
>> > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
>> >
>> > Don't you think that this means Verizon must provide access to the
>> > corresponding Busybox source code apart from Actiontec? What happens
>> > if Actiontec goes out of business tomorrow?
>> >
>> The source should still be available.
>
> And how are you going to enforce that?
>
GPL.
--
Rick
