On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> Look, personal abuse crap aside, I really feel you have completely
> ignored what I said.
I only replied to two points:
1. (a trivial nitpick) re Harald being the developer of initrd (he
isnt, as Kevin had wrote previously).
2. Your suggestion that these people are zealots:
"IMO, gpl-violations made a tactical error in not including this info
in their own press release. The lack of any reference to it makes
them seem like zealots, pushing the greater picture to the detriment
of a legal argument which they have already won."
gpl-violations.org is *precisely* about the greater picture. That's
the point you seem to be missing with both the above and your focus
on how insignificant or not initrd is wrt the linux kernel.
It doesnt matter a damn whether initrd is trivial or a huge amount of
important code - it doesnt matter whether it's initrd or iptables or
fs/minix.c. It's just a 'sample' to use as a means of bringing
commited infringers to court and stopping them.
And if it gets to court, these companies are almost without a doubt
wilful infringers - they will already been informed privately of
infringement, they could have worked something out even at court
before seeing the judge.
FortiOS are worse than that, not only wilful in continuing
infringement once they were notified but, preceding that, they tried
to conceal their infringement with encrypted images - they knew they
were doing wrong from the start, quite likely. Forti, imho, deserve
only scorn (and huge punitive damages, but i wasnt the judge ;) ).
> to one specific item - initrd. The case was not a wholesale suage
> of Forti for all of their violations of the gpl.
In practical terms, yes it is.
Forti could of course go and rewrite initrd (or not use initrd at
all) and start infringing again and Harald will have to find some
other kernel developer to assign rights over to relevant code, but:
- it's unlikely Forti will do that, eg it would look /very/ bad if
they're hauled in court again for another piece of linux kernel
- today, here and now, it doesnt matter - Forti are under injunction
> about the nature of the victory which are not backed up by real
> legal facts.
There is no wiggle room. They must not infringe copyright initrd.
> The legal facts are that gpl-violations successfully obtained an
> injuinction against Forti for their inclusion of gpl'ed initrd code,
> forcing Forti into a settlement. The statements at
>>http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html> and the Forti release are both spinning those facts.
How exactly? What is it stated there (the gpl-violations.org one)
which you think is objectionable spin?
> gpl-violations need to be roundly congratulated. I whole heartedly
> agree with everything I snipped from your mail. And, yes, I did
> read what Kevin wrote, and fail to see how anything I said
> disagrees with that.
Well, the "gpl zealots" bit seemed wacky, sorry.
> Pass the pipe back when you're done, would ya?
You didnt pass it on yet!
(dont worry though, i have a huge personal stache of crack - at
least i'm sure many others on this list would think so ;) ).
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.iepaul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
My folks didn't come over on the Mayflower, but they were there to meet
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!