[ILUG] FortiOS & Linux

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On 4/19/05, Paul Jakma <paul at clubi.ie> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> 

> > 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.
> 
> WTF are you smoking?
 
<snip>

> Anyway, yeah, you really have to sorry for those poor corporations
> who rip-off GPL code and then get sued by zealots.

Look, personal abuse crap aside, I really feel you have completely
ignored what I said.

The case taken against Forti was not based on their wholesale
violation of the gpl, it was based on a specific violation of one
developers rights under the gpl. Those rights in that case related to
one specific item - initrd. The case was not a wholesale suage of
Forti for all of their violations of the gpl.

For all the court knows or cares, initrd was the only gpl'ed code 
in Forti's codebase - they still granted the preliminary injunction.
That is a huge victory, and something which needs to be 
celebrated.

On the other hand, it does allow Forti to wriggle, claiming it was
one tiny part of their code. This wriggle room is then expanded 
when the gpl-violation press release makes sweeping statements
about the nature of the victory which are not backed up by real
legal facts.

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.

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.

Pass the pipe back when you're done, would ya?

Regards,

Daniel