[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:05:46 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
>> > At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the
>> > entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC
>> > for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits such as
>> >
>> > in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous
>> > 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik
>> > Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT
>> > joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known
>> > as busybox at
>> Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX
>> licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit.
> A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see
> 17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and
> only Apple, silly.

Without any components with copyright by other parties?

Really, you should do some trivial reality checks before one of your
wild law interpretation sprees.

Pretty much every operating system nowadays contains part from the BSD
TCP/IP stacks as an _integrated_ part.  Those parts _are_ copyrighted,
even though they are licensed with the liberal BSD license.

According to your _copyright_ theories, nobody could sue for breach of
license without Berkeley joining the suit.

So don't forget those reality checks.  Consider the real world before
starting your "every GPL licensor will be punished" masturbations.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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