Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:49a251c4$0$32682$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > "Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ekjol.24698$uG1.18298@newsfe16.iad...
> > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with
> > > > the
> > > > notion as a concept.  However, in the case of BusyBox, such
> > > > hypothetical
> > > > benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders.  There was no
> > > > modification that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any
> > > > user.  In the JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be
> > > > true.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're begging the question.  Your "conclusion" is that the source need
> > > only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't
> > > modified, then it need not be available.
> > I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am
> > saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then
> > it is of no value to the community.
>
> What you think is irrelevant
>
> > Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it
> > from the original source, i.e. Busybox.org or whatever.
>
> Right. In true Bill Weisgerber mode, you try to put the burden on the
> costumer, instead of the distributor.
Just where do you get the idea that my name is Bill Weisgerber?  I asked 
before, but you are at a loss for words.

Also, if you were interested in BusyBox, where would you yourself go to get 
source?  Actiontec?

> > No one is going
> > to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original
> > source.
>
> And you know this from where, exactly? Your ass?

It is only basic prudence.  Go to the source, not some third party ten times 
removed.  You look silly contesting that idea.