[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

From: RJack
Subject: Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:56:44 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 6/25/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote:
*Allegedly* distributed

If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are not distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.

Have you read the defendants Answers to Complaint? ROFL.

The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox

They own the copyright of any modifications they have made. The combined work of BusyBox which contains their copyrighted work may not be distributed without their permission, and such permission is only through the GPL.

The *broken* GPL.

The plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any* version of Busybox registered

This is manifestly false, since he already has such a version successfully registered.

This is manifestly true since he already has fraudulently
registered a version of Busybox that he doesn't own -- which is
contrary to copyright law.

You can spin but you can't win.

Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever* successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because the original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle.

Unfortunately for you, copyright law makes no provision allowing the
 copying and distribution of copyrighted works without permission on
 grounds of complexity of ownership.

The broken GPL gives the defendants permission to copy and distribute.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, copyright law does not allow
registration of works you don't own.

You can spin but you can't win.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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