RE: Dell vs. GPL

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

"entitles", again take that to court as the third party.

Hell I can not get back my sources from companies and I own copyright.
Oh and it usually takes a letter of discovery, and time for them to wash
the materials away.  I have one advantage over the rest, I can do media
forensics and recover erased data and materials.

I am finding out just how impossible it is to enforce GPL, because we all
believe in the idea and concept but execution to maintain its existance is
not easy nor are the processes simple.  If Dell has a reason to exploit
GPL and can defend it for a while to gain a market edge they are fools not
to do so.  Time to Market is the key, and there is no means to date for
the maintainers of today and yesterday to receive compensation for such
violations.  Obviously when money is involved
people/organizations/corporations tend to do wacky things and then
apologize later.

So please list for me all the briefs, rulings, filings where GPL has set a
legal position to make hold its claim to promote and FORCE openness.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

> 
> > First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> > You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
> 
> 	False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.
> 
> > Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL
> > unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to
> > Dell.
> 
> 	False. He downloaded the object file from Dell's web site, so Dell
> distributed it to him. This entitles him to the source code.
> 
> >  So get your facts first.
> 
> 	Facts?
> 
> > If there is a GPL issue with Dell and it involves my work, my lawyers will
> > contact Dell.
> 
> 	Glad to hear it.
> 
> 	DS
> 
>