[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:59 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/11/2010 1:10 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hello, Rjack!

There is no such thing as a "copyright enforcement agent" under
federal law. Which GNU legal beagles out there dreamed up this
idiotic fraud about the Software Freedom Conservancy? The
internet is abuzz with the sounds of utter gibberish about how

Some posts are so week that they barely deserve a reply.  Your
reasoning here falls into that category.  However, I will reply

"Doing gnu enforcement" doesn't imply solely lawyers' work.  There
is clearly and obviously non-lawyers' work involved, all the way from
 high level meetings deciding strategy right down to dropping letters
 into the nearest postbox.

Weak huh?

Mr. Kuhn has a long history of activism in actively contacting authors
of GPL software and advising them of strategies to *legally* enforce
copyrights. he has held sundry *paid* positions to do so. Bradley would
be a lawyer's dream to depose concerning his activities to "enforce GPL

You never mentioned his bogus claims concerning the Software Freedom
Conservancy and "being a copyright enforcement agent". Federal law
doesn't allow for "copyright enforcement agents" so in what capacity
is he appearing as "President of the Software Freedom Conservancy" and
as co-plaintiff?

Tiny text strings embedded in object code isn't brillant strategy
but if you've read the affidavits filed in the Westinghouse default
judgment, it is interesting to note that the strategy for BusyBox suits
against Best Buy et. al. defendants was being planned as far back as the
year 2006 with Mr. Bradley Kuhn's help:

Yes, a like like this alone is enough to give us evidence to pursue
an enforcement case -- no question about that.

However, it's an EXTREME "gotcha" on a GPL violation if someone's
*actual* copyright notice appears in the 'strings' output on binary.
This is because the violator, by distributing the work with your
copyright notice in place, has made a clear statement that they knew
the work was copyrighted by you.

It's basically the perfect egg-on-the-face moment, because they are
admitting fully in their *own distribution* that they've infringed
your copyright.

So many times, violators argue that they didn't know what was in
there, etc.  When the Copyright notice appears right in the binary,
they start the negotiation at a serious disadvantage from the start.

Also, there is the added bonus that if the default 'make' of busybox
 generates a copyright notice that's left in the binary, the
violator would have to go through hoops to remove it.  Should they
ever do this, it would be good evidence that they had engaged in
*willful* infringement of your copyright.

As I understand it (Norwood can confirm), this allows for a stronger
set of penalties in the courts when someone engages in willful
copyright infringement.  Of course, our goal is to get compliance
without ever going to court, but having a bigger lever during that
negotiation is always an aid.

The copyright notice for the binary need not list every copyright
holder; it'd be enough to say:

"Copyright (C) YEAR-2006  Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, and others.
Licensed under GPLv2.  See source distribution for full notice."

-- bkuhn

The next time you post Alan, try to think first.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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