[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500

"Thufir Hawat" <> wrote in message news:Ekjol.24698$uG1.18298@newsfe16.iad...
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

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.

I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it from the original source, i.e. or whatever. No one is going to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original source.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]