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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation
>> > work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple.
>> 
>> How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple
>> changed?
>
> BSD "copyright" didn't "come to cease" (it's too early for expiration
> and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of
> the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless
> Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected
> expression.

Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a
"joint copyright" situation for those portions, and anybody can take any
parts of Apple's changes and use them without worry, since Apple could
only possibly sue if it managed to get Berkeley interested to sue
together with them, and Berkeley's choice of license made perfectly
clear that Berkeley is not interested much in suing.

Do you really not understand why your theories about the GPL case are so
absurd and don't stand up to real world cases?

> At this point, why don't you just piss off and call 
>
> http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies
>
> you retard dak?

It's funny how every time you are shown to be wrong, you holler for
doctors, medications, and retards.  Not to mention drunk judges.

Such a transparent maneuver, and what a pathetic excuse for a smoke
screen.

-- 
David Kastrup