Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Thufir Hawat]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:


> I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with the
> notion as a concept.  However, in the case of BusyBox, such hypothetical
> benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders.  There was no
> modification that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any
> user.  In the JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be
> true.


You're begging the question.  Your "conclusion" is that the source need 
only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't 
modified, then it need not be available.


-Thufr