Andrew Sutton wrote: [...]
nice to know that we have a representative willing to sue Best Buy to protect the rights reserved by Boost contributors.
http://terekhov.de/178.pdf "... Conservancy Project Membership, http://sfconservancy.org/members/.............................................. Current Member Projects, http://sfconservancy.org/members/current/ (last accessed February 9, 2011)....................4 Member Project Services, http://sfconservancy.org/members/services/ (last accessed February 9, 2011)..................4 [...] The second Plaintiff is the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy), which is not an assignee of any registered copyright in BusyBox. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. A, at 86:23-87:10.) According to its website, the Conservancy takes applications from Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects.1 Projects whose applications are accepted become a Member Project of the Conservancy.2 The Conservancy then provides services, such as administrative support, and it also provides a shield or protection from personal liability for the developers of the project.3 The Conservancys web site advises that its directors believe strongly in the principles of software freedom and that they oppose[] the notion of patents that cover software.4 Thus, the Conservancy is opposed to proprietary rights in software. The Conservancy identifies BusyBox as a Member Project, without identifying any particular individual or developer as a member.5 Indeed, there are multiple BusyBox authors who are not represented by the Conservancy. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. A, at 95:24-96:2, 102:9-104:22.) Thus, while the Conservancy claims that it has some kind of enforcement rights in a BusyBox Member Project, and it seeks to enjoin any use of any version of BusyBox, it does not represent all the copyright owners in BusyBox. On September 5, 2010, nine months after suit was filed, Mr. Andersen, a work from home father (Motion, Dkt. No. 164 at 19), entered into an Amended and Restated Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement (Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement) with the Conservancy that provides that the Conservancy can conduct license compliance enforcement efforts on behalf of Projects not members. (Roberg-Perez Decl. Ex. C, at 3, ¶ 5.) It explicitly provides that recovered funds, or damages, obtained in enforcement actions, be deposited in a Project Fund, and managed by the Plaintiffs under precise terms. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus, both Plaintiffs in this case contemplated monetary recoveries in enforcement actions, like this one. The Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement does not contemplate that fiscal recoveries would be insufficient to remedy any violations. Indeed, the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement, written after Plaintiffs sued Best Buy, does not even consider that irreparable harm may arise from any alleged non-compliance. ..." regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)