Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

On 8/6/2010 12:39 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 12:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > How much one must pay to Eric Andersen for his alleged
> > contributions to the BusyBox publicly available under the GPL
>
> Nothing at all, as long as one has not violated his copyright by
> failing to honor the conditions of the GPL when copying and
> distributing work on which he holds copyright.
>
> > Didn't YOU claim that ALL contributions coming in touch with the
> > GPL'd work fall under the GPL and hence must be licensed "at no
> > cost to all third parties"?

> No. All work copied and distributed as part of a combined work which
> includes components licensed under the GPL must be licensed under the
> GPL as well, except when the GPL permits otherwise through the
> aggregate work exception. Derivative works of works licensed under
> the GPL may only be copied and distributed if they are licensed under
> the GPL.

The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is legally
unenforceable.

> It's all very basic stuff and not especially difficult to understand
> and follow, except for people who are looking for ways to avoid the
> obligations of the GPL while still copying and distributing GPLed
> work.


Basic stuff made up by the FSF and stuff that is legally unenforceable.


> For the non-thieves, simply think of a GPLed component as a short
> story. Permission to include it in an anthology is similar to
> permission needed to include GPLed code as part of a larger linked
> program. Permission to adapt it into a novel is similar to
> permission needed to modify GPLed code.

The thieves are GPL licensors who try to steal other folks copyrights
with an illegal license.

> And permission to dynamically link to it is similar to permission
> needed to list it in a bibliography, which is to say none.

Sincerely,
RJack :)