[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

From: RJack
Subject: Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:27:53 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/12/2010 8:07 AM, amicus_curious wrote:
These cases seem to center around some unsuspecting developer making the fatal mistake of using the BusyBox utilities for some embedded computer device and failing to pay homage to the FOSSers by posting yet another copy of the BusyBox source code somewhere.

Steve Martin used to do this comedy routine: How to make $1,000,000 and not pay taxes on it - First, make $1,000,000. Then, don't pay taxes on it. When the IRS comes to ask you why, say "I forgot".

Developers are not permitted to be unsuspecting when they incorporate
third-party code into their own programs. They must make sure that all licenses for such code are complied with properly. This is as true for GPLed components as for components which require payment.

Hyman why can't you understand that ownership formation questions must
be resolved prior to even speaking of "licensing".

"17 USC 101 A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors
with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable
or interdependent parts of a unitary whole."

Erik Andersen has sworn that BusyBox is "a single computer" program
which is to say that it is a "unitary whole"

"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and
optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell
phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices."

The Copyright Act is crystal clear: "unitary whole" and "interdependent

Now if Erik claims that his intent was not to merge his code "the
interdependent parts" of the single computer program called "BusyBox"
that's fine with me. Let him remove his interdependent parts. It's his
code. Let him take it home and put it under his pillow. Who cares?


Of course now that he has removed his contributed interdependent parts,
(remember, Erik swears that he is "the owner of copyrights in that
computer program"), he no longer has any legal interest in BusyBox.
Fair enough Hyman? Bye-Bye lawsuit.

"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"


RJack :)

reply via email to

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