[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 15:58:29 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/9/2010 11:30 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 8/6/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote:
The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is
legally unenforceable.

17 USC 301 is the law which says that states may not make their own
laws equivalent to copyright. It has nothing at all to do with the
GPL, since the GPL is a license that grants additional permissions
otherwise forbidden by federal copyright law.

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

All licenses are "made up" by their creators. The license is not
enforceable, but copyright is. The license grants permissions that
would not otherwise be available under plain copyright law, but it
grants those permissions only provided the conditions it specifies
are met.

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

The license is legal, and its acceptance is voluntary, so it cannot
steal anything. No one can ever be forced to accept the GPL, but
also no one (aside from the copyright holder) may copy and
distribute GPL-covered works without accepting it. The only
"stealing" comes from people who want to copy and distribute
GPL-covered works without accepting the conditions which permit

Under the criminal statutes, the crime of "attempted conversion" is an
attempt to exert unauthorized control over others property.

Using the GPL is attempting to seize control over all downstream third
parties' *exclusively owned* copyrights -- that *is* attempting to steal
in ever sense of the word.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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