[Top][All Lists]

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


From: RJack
Subject: Re: SFLC is SOL
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:09:39 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 1:08 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/22/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote:
It is easily verified that neither link leads to the alleged infringed program source code.

Of what use is a transparent lie?

"Transparent lie"? "TRANSPARENT LIE"???????????????????

Show me a link to the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3 and I'll kiss your lyin' ass on the public courthouse square.

Why do they need to provide the source code to v.0.60.3? They need to
provide the source code to the version they copy and distribute. Do you have reason to believe that v.0.60.3 is the version they copy and

Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims
(falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he
re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of
BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court jurisdiction
to hear infringement claims.

You can't register Donald Duck with the Copyright Office and then claim
infringement over Daffy Duck.

You're probably best know in this group as the guy who likes to
Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove the goalposts -- keep trying
Hyman. Just keep trying.

In the instant case Erik Andersen wasn't even the original author of
BusyBox v.0.60.3.

The source code for BusyBox is included in <>.

Most of the stuff in BusyBox v.0.60.3 is derivative of BSD4.4-lite
 and is not original work by BusyBox authors anyway.

Any modification in functionality is sufficient to create a derivative work. It does not have to satisfy any notion of "originality". Anyone who wishes to copy and distribute a non-GPLed early version of BusyBox may do so under whatever license that version permits.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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