Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:49a2b813$0$31336$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> Because you are Bill Weisgerber, that dishonest twit who also posted as
> "billwg"
> And no, I am not at a loss for words. Why would I explain how I know?
> You are in no way whatsoever entitled to an explanation. Just rest assured
> that you are *far* *worse* in nymshifting than flatffish will ever be
You sound like a small child with such an explanation, i.e. "Why?" 
"Because!".  Even your premise is obscure.  You, I believe, were wont to 
publish a huge list of names, all supposed to be variants of some original 
"flatfish".  Your allegation here is that I have done so but once which you 
declare "far worse".  That is the height of illogical thought.

> > Also, if you were interested in BusyBox, where would you yourself go to
> > get source?  Actiontec?
>
> How would I know? I am not interested in BusyBox, so I did not look at it
> at all.
So whether or not anyone uses it is of no consequence to you?  Which makes 
my point.

> > > > 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.
>
> And how does the customer know which party is "the source"?
> For the customer it is the one making that product. So he is going to
> their website in the first place
>
> You are obviously not just totally dishonest, you are also incredibly
> stupid. You simply don't even try to think your "arguments" through before
> posting that garbage

Well that is your opinion, but you seem powerless to do anything other than 
rant.  Do you suppose you are impressing anyone?  I think that it could only 
be yourself and I doubt that you are all that impressed with your posts 
either.
>