I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
I’d like to congratulate Harald Welte on yet another great decision in the
Berlin court, this time regarding a long-known GPL violator called Fantec.
There are so many violations of this nature that are of course so
trivially easy to find; it’s often tough to pick which one to take action
on. Harald has done a great job being selective to make good examples of
violators.
Just as a bit of history, I first documented and confirmed the Fantec
violation in January 2009, based
on this
email sent to the BusyBox mailing list. I discovered that the product
didn’t seem to be regularly on sale in the USA, so it wasn’t ultimately
part of the lawsuit that Conservancy and Erik Andersen filed in late
2009.
However, since Fantec products were on sale mostly in Germany, it was a
great case for Harald to pursue. I’m not surprised in the least that even three
years after I confirmed the
violation, gpl-violations.org
found Fantec still out of compliance and was able to take action at
that point. It’s not surprising either that it took an entire year
thereafter to get it resolved. My reaction to that was actually: Darn,
that Berlin Court acts fast compared to Courts in the USA. 🙂
The collective thoughts of the interwebz
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.