Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: The GPL (and Linux?) in court

  • Subject: Re: The GPL (and Linux?) in court
  • From: flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:07:18 -0400
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: mariana.trench
  • References: <4nkgdnFasdlkU1@individual.net> <20060923114806.28d93c3c@localhost.localdomain> <87irje77i6.fsf@geemail.com> <451586a6$0$2097$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk> <e6mgu3-vmo.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>
  • User-agent: Shysterwitch version 0.99.18.41.03.21-a
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1159171
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:39:58 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Peter Kai Jensen <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> 
>>>> I saw this on digg just now. They (dlink) obviously make more money
>>>> paying the GPL when they make a product and don't comply with the
>>>> rules of the GPL... I don't know if that's a good thing or not, the
>>>> GPL don't go for damages.
>>>
>>> Hilarious : a company uses LINUX and what happens : end up in court
>>> over some ridiculously minor infringement.
>> 
>> You consider copyright infringement for profit to be a ridiculously
>> minor infringement?
>> 
> 
> He's a windows chap - he sees nothing wrong with violation of copyright
> - MS do it all the time.

Actually you are confused.
Roy Schestowich is the copyright violator.

That's the problem with OSS people, they think everything is free for the
taking.

====================================================================

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dbb4e98895553672


So, it appears that Roy is using images on his blog that he has wholesale
copied from the authors without permission.

I noticed this on this article:

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/03/scoble-given-up/

Interesting that he credits the image author (for that one), but he
neglected to actually get the authors permission to copy it.  I was
supsicious that this might be the case and emailed the author to find out.
He confirmed that it was copyright infringement.

If he had merely linked to the image, it would have been more acceptable,
since he wouldn't have actually copied the image.  However, that would beg
the bandwidth stealing argument of linking to images on other peoples
sites.

In any event, I have to wonder how many other images on his site have been
similarly misappropriated.  Many of them have no credits at all.

Bummer for you Roy. 

===================================================================

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index