In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <user@example.net> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <user@example.net> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a
fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has
been violated, and Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. Huh????
If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud.
Nice try Alan. The "technicality" to which you speak is the United
States Copyright Act, Title 17 USC. This is the same tactic taken
by your anarchist mentors like RMS and Eben Moglen -- if it doesn't
fit your philosophy then it's just a legal "technicality".
Look, let's just wait and see, OK? You don't know the full
particulars of this case any more than I do. And you reckon your
understanding of USA copyright law exceeds Eben Moglen's, do you? If
so, on what basis?
Further speculation seems pointless.
Ye Gads, Alan! Thank you, thank you. Admitting that what you are
claiming is SPECULATION is a first step towards atonement and
spiritual enlightenment!!!.
I reckon you're doing the speculating. You're also very unsure of
yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a song and dance
about it. I've said what my prediction is. You've said what yours
is, namely Erik Andersen and the SFLC will get blown out of court due
to a "fraudulent" claim and find themselves having to pay the bills
of 14 companies' lawyers. edicti We shall see.