Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message 
85ab8brg9a.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85ab8brg9a.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > "Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Gpjol.24760$uG1.4427@newsfe16.iad...
> > > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> > >
> > > > But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to give their work away and
> > > > have been doing so for years.  The only thing that they are hammering
> > > > their users in regard to is for not publishing the acknowledgement and
> > > > code itself on the user's own site.
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly, if you choose to distribute *their* work then there are
> > > conditions.  What's wrong with that?
> >
> > The conditions are silly and useless, making the authors appear to be
> > the same.
>
> So what?  You don't seem to have much of a problem with being silly and
> useless, certainly being much more so than the BusyBox authors.
But I am not suing companies for such trivia.  And you can only muster some 
inane slurs in response?  That is pretty lame.