[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: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:31:08 -0500

"Peter Köhlmann" <> wrote in message news:49a251c4$0$32682$
amicus_curious wrote:

"Thufir Hawat" <> wrote in message
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
notion as a concept.  However, in the case of BusyBox, such
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.

What you think is irrelevant

Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it
from the original source, i.e. or whatever.

Right. In true Bill Weisgerber mode, you try to put the burden on the
costumer, instead of the distributor.

Just where do you get the idea that my name is Bill Weisgerber? I asked before, but you are at a loss for words.

Also, if you were interested in BusyBox, where would you yourself go to get source? Actiontec?

No one is going
to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original

And you know this from where, exactly? Your ass?

It is only basic prudence. Go to the source, not some third party ten times removed. You look silly contesting that idea.

reply via email to

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