The "Sony engineer" in question states: "I believe they do not have this right (either legally or morally)".
Yet provides no basis for this belief.
As I read it, this Sony engineer is basically saying: "In legal and moral terms, we are only violating the licence if someone complains about it. If no one complains, then even though we are shipping GPL code in violation of the GPL licence, it's not, legally or morally, a violation."
I see no grounds, either legal or moral, to support this belief.
Q1: Does this Sony engineer believe the same about music or DVD piracy? Q1a. Does this Sony engineer believe the same about murder? If the police catch someone murdering someone else in the street, and no one complains about it, then does this Sony engineer really believe the police have to let the murderer go, and if it goes to court, that any judge or jury must acquit the murderer?
Q2: On what grounds does this Sony engineer believe the SFC does *not* have a legal right to enforce GPL compliance for any piece of GPL code?
SFC are not in any way bound to BusyBox. Their ambit is to help or coerce people and companies that ship code under the GPL licence, to comply with that licence.
Surely, the legal obligation of any person or organisation using GPL licenced code is to comply with that licence.
Following the same "logic", does this Sony engineer believe that neither the RIAA nor IFPI has the right, either legal or moral, to enforce compliance of the Music or Film copyrights held by Sony and its subsidiaries?
Q3: What are the moral grounds on which this Sony engineer feels the SFC does not have the right to try to enforce compliance with any piece of GPL licenced code?
Basically, this seems to be just Sony saying "geez we like your product and want to use it - we just don't want to abide by the responsibilities that you've placed on the licence."
This seems to be exactly the same that Sony argue against (vehemently) when it comes to someone not complying with one of Sony's licences.
no subject
Yet provides no basis for this belief.
As I read it, this Sony engineer is basically saying: "In legal and moral terms, we are only violating the licence if someone complains about it. If no one complains, then even though we are shipping GPL code in violation of the GPL licence, it's not, legally or morally, a violation."
I see no grounds, either legal or moral, to support this belief.
Q1: Does this Sony engineer believe the same about music or DVD piracy?
Q1a. Does this Sony engineer believe the same about murder?
If the police catch someone murdering someone else in the street, and no one complains about it, then does this Sony engineer really believe the police have to let the murderer go, and if it goes to court, that any judge or jury must acquit the murderer?
Q2: On what grounds does this Sony engineer believe the SFC does *not* have a legal right to enforce GPL compliance for any piece of GPL code?
SFC are not in any way bound to BusyBox. Their ambit is to help or coerce people and companies that ship code under the GPL licence, to comply with that licence.
Surely, the legal obligation of any person or organisation using GPL licenced code is to comply with that licence.
Following the same "logic", does this Sony engineer believe that neither the RIAA nor IFPI has the right, either legal or moral, to enforce compliance of the Music or Film copyrights held by Sony and its subsidiaries?
Q3: What are the moral grounds on which this Sony engineer feels the SFC does not have the right to try to enforce compliance with any piece of GPL licenced code?
Basically, this seems to be just Sony saying "geez we like your product and want to use it - we just don't want to abide by the responsibilities that you've placed on the licence."
This seems to be exactly the same that Sony argue against (vehemently) when it comes to someone not complying with one of Sony's licences.