[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 13:52:11 -0500

"Peter Köhlmann" <> wrote in message news:49a2b813$0$31336$
amicus_curious wrote:

"Peter Köhlmann" <> wrote in message
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
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.

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.

Because you are Bill Weisgerber, that dishonest twit who also posted as
And no, I am not at a loss for words. Why would I explain how I know?
You are in no way whatsoever entitled to an explanation. Just rest assured
that you are *far* *worse* in nymshifting than flatffish will ever be

You sound like a small child with such an explanation, i.e. "Why?" "Because!". Even your premise is obscure. You, I believe, were wont to publish a huge list of names, all supposed to be variants of some original "flatfish". Your allegation here is that I have done so but once which you declare "far worse". That is the height of illogical thought.

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

How would I know? I am not interested in BusyBox, so I did not look at it
at all.

So whether or not anyone uses it is of no consequence to you? Which makes my point.

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.

And how does the customer know which party is "the source"?
For the customer it is the one making that product. So he is going to
their website in the first place

You are obviously not just totally dishonest, you are also incredibly
stupid. You simply don't even try to think your "arguments" through before
posting that garbage

Well that is your opinion, but you seem powerless to do anything other than rant. Do you suppose you are impressing anyone? I think that it could only be yourself and I doubt that you are all that impressed with your posts either.

reply via email to

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