[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Justice draws nigh

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Justice draws nigh
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:55:12 -0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

RJack <> writes:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2010 12:02 PM, RJack wrote:
>>>> By all means, please post the self serving fictitious reply.
>>> I won't since the reply was a private e-mail to me. But you will
>>> undoubtedly be displeased to know that the 'MI424WR - FW: 20.10.7'
>>> link on is once again correctly
>>> supplying a source code file.
>> Did you check the source code for its "completeness" in the GNU
>> sense, you retard?
>> regards, alexander.
>> P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds
>> the originality standards required by copyright law."
>> Hyman Rosen <> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
>> P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this
>> fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
>> Hyman Rosen <> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
>> -- (GNG is a derecursive recursive
>> derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as
>> GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU
>> cannot.)
> There is no link to "BusyBox v.0.60.3" as claimed in the lawsuit.

Nothing like that was claimed in the lawsuit.  That is the version of
Busybox whose copyright registration was used as a base of the lawsuit.
But the GPL demands the _corresponding_ source code to distributed
binaries, not just any old sourcecode version that happens to be

In particular, when the vendor made modifications, it would be utterly
_pointless_ if some registered version was made available that did not
correspond to the binaries.  And _of_ _course_ the plaintiff can't
register copyright for a version including vendor modifications.  But he
can register copyright for a version sharing identifiable amounts of
code (sections for which he is copyright holder) with the vendor

The point of the GPL is not forcing people to become separate
distribution channels.  The point is to provide _corresponding_ source
to the binaries a customer gets as soon as identifiable portions of
copyrighted and registered code can be found.

Are you claiming that there is no code overlap between the Actiontec
distribution and Busybox v.0.60.3?  Unless that is the case, your
argument is irrelevant.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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