Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[chrisv]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

>On 2/11/2010 2:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>
>> Why didn't Erik Andersen fork the busybox to create his
> > own non-joint version of busybox?
>
>As far as I understand, he made changes to BusyBox to
>produce a new version. "Fork" would imply that he was
>making a version separate from one undergoing development
>by someone else. I do not know the history of BusyBox well
>enough to say if this was the case, but I would suspect
>that it wasn't.
>
>There is no joint copyright version of BusyBox, so asking
>why he did not create his own non-joint version makes an
>untrue implication.
>
>> They "agree and intend to do so" by posting contributions
>> to joint work projects like busybox

Good gravy, what a ludicrous claim.  You are a fscking idiot.

>They do not. They post contributions to GPL-licensed
>programs, and the GPL is the only documentation of
>their intent. If the GPL intended to create a joint
>work it would say so, and since it does not, no joint
>work is created. Indeed, since the GPL spells out that
>GPLed work may be distributed only under the GPL, while
>joint authorship would allow later authors to distribute
>the work otherwise, it is clear that the GPL intends not
>to create a joint work.