Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Dyslexia with the word "random"?

So you don't know what "dyslexia" means, don't know what "random" means
and/or have no idea what programs are.  Your legal prowess fits right in
with the rest of your remarkable capabilities.

>>> 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.
>
> "Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
> reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
> circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
> respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
> unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."; De Forest Radio Tel. &
> Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, United States Supreme Court
> (1927).

After an exchange of consideration or a two-sided declaration of wanting
to enter into a contractual relation.  It does not look like the
defendants would be in the situation to claim that.

A shoplifter can't state that he should not be sued for theft but merely
for breach of contract because he would have been able to pay and leave
had he wanted to.

>> 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
>
> A failed copyright license is construed against its drafter in the
> United States.

You mean, a failed _contract_.  A license is something _granting_
permission.  If it fails, there is no license.

> Read it and weep DAK:
>
> Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.
> Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel.

That's if a license fails for reasons the licensee could not reasonably
expect.  "How was I supposed to know that I had to keep my end of the
deal, too?"  is not exactly going to have the court go "of course, of
course".

-- 
David Kastrup