Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Technically, the copyright owners could've sued Apple instead of requesting removal--Apple was selling & distributing works for which it did not have copyright. OS advocates being willing to settle for "remove it" instead of "get sued for up to $150,000 for every copy you've illegally sold or given away" is the polite reaction on the part of the copyright holders.
Apple was in violation of copyright by offering to sell those apps in the first place.
|
Talking of copyright violations, I just read this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/15/android_gpl/
Quote:
|
According to Naughton, when building Android's Bionic library – which provides application developers with access to Android's underlying Linux kernel – Google stretched the boundaries of copyright law by making use of the Linux header files open sourced under the GNU Public License (GPLv2), which has a strong copyleft provision. Google stripped programmer commentary and other information from the files, arguing that these "cleaned" files are no longer subject to copyright. Then, as part of Android, it open sourced the files under a license with no copyleft provision.
|
Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft or Apple had done something similar?