Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> How about moving the goalpost in your head from that lie?  The GPL
>> does not demand access to the source code of "registered
>> versions". It demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the
>> binaries.  The registration shows material for which infringement is
>> claimed.
>
> Every thing is clear now.
>
> 1) The registration shows material for which infringement is claimed.
>
> 2) Versions _corresponding_ to the binaries are not the same as the
>    registered version.

Not necessarily, or otherwise one could not file infringement cases for
modified versions.

> 3) You can file a lawsuit and claim infringement of source code that
>    is the same except that it is different even if you haven't
>    personally written it.

No, you can claim only infringement for portions for which you can have
shown to be copyright owner.  To simplify life for the courts, you have
to register copyright before making a claim.  As long as copyrightable
material from the registered claim can be shown to be in the infringing
version without a defense indicating that the defendant _had_ a legal
license to this material from a _different_ version, there is no point
for a defendant to claim non-infringement.

Registration is not changing the legal situation, it is merely a
procedure you have to heed in order to let the court work more
efficiently.

> This is called "infringing a moving target" and is a new copyright
> infringement principle.

Whatever.

-- 
David Kastrup