Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> A smoking gun is a smoking gun.  It is not against the law to carry
>> smoking guns on the premises of a murder.  It is nevertheless
>> something that you should have an outstandingly good explanation for
>>  when talking to a jury.
>>
>>> Good luck convincing a jury of "substantial similarity" Hyman.
>>
>
> Good luck convincing the judge to instruct the jury that the burden of
> proof is a "smoking gun" and not a preponderance of the evidence.
>
>> Good luck convincing a jury that all you left in was the
>> (non-copyrightable) version string.
>
> Left in what? The couple of million occcurences of non-registered,
> non-identified random numbers?

Every single copyrighted literary work consists of million occurences of
letters.  Well, millions for larger works.

Not a particularly convincing argument you try here.

> This discussion is academic at best. Long, long before any jury would
> hear any admissible evidence, Judge Scheindlin will have shredded and
> discarded the GPL licnese.

For those defendants not coming into compliance, the expected outcome
indeed is that the GPL, its conditions not being met, will be shredded
and discarded by the judge, leaving the defendant without a valid
license to point to for copying and distribution.

That was the whole point of the suit.  So it is not clear why you are
hopping with glee in the prospect of the judge agreeing with the
plaintiffs.

-- 
David Kastrup