Re: GPL weasels and the atheros stink

[Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>]

On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
> > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > > you let Person
> > > B do X without complaint".
> >
> > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> > failing to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where
> > we could act to preserve our right to act in a particular case.
>
> You *do* however need to be aware that in some cases, public inactivity
> and/or statements that something will not be acted on may estoppel any
> future attempts to enforce something.

Exactly. However, inactivity can be construed as lack of knowledge that 
something is occurring. (ie: the RIAA didn't start acting on file-sharing 
until they became aware of Napster)

But for said estoppel to not be a factor you will have to prosecute and/or 
file suit on all instances of the activity. (And filing a suit and then 
dropping it against some of the people that you filed suit against - ie: you 
file suit against persons A and B and then drop the suit against person A in 
its entirety - because you only wanted to prosecute person B for the action, 
you are leaving yourself open to lawsuits on a number of counts.)

DRH

-- 
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.