[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:56:44 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0

On 6/25/2010 4:34 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
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?

Not with any great attention. It's not interesting at early
stages because such responses throw up a screen of every
possible legal argument, plausible or not, in order to make
work for the other side and so as not to foreclose on any
avenue of defense. If they have made such a claim, and do not
choose to settle, then it will be up to the plaintiffs to
prove that the defenses are invalid.

The *broken* GPL.

The GPL is not broken. No one who wishes to comply with its
terms has any trouble doing so. It is those who wish to benefit
from GPLed software without honoring its terms who complain
most about it. There is no need to worry about the opinios of
parasites. GPLv3 did go to great lengths to accommodate the
needs of free software developers who wish to use GPLed code
in projects licensed under incompatible licenses.

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.

His registration of BusyBox is legal since it is a derivative
work he has created. If the defendants believe otherwise, they
may claim that, and then the plaintiffs will need to demonstrate

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.

The GPL is not broken, and gives permission to copy and
distribute only in compliance with its terms. Erik Andersen
is an owner of copyright in BusyBox under the terms specified
in US copyright law, and thus may sue if BusyBox is copied and
distributed without permission. Usenet cranks believe that they
may accept permissions without accepting requirements; belief
in insane ideas is after all the hallmark of a crank. But the
beliefs of cranks do not translate into law, as Daniel Wallace

reply via email to

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