Re: SFLC is SOL

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims 
> > (falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he
> >  re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of 
> > BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court 
> > jurisdiction to hear infringement claims.
> >
> > You can't register Donald Duck with the Copyright Office and then 
> > claim infringement over Daffy Duck.
>
> The complaint is not relevant for a settlement out of court anyway. 
> The past misconduct can't be cured by distributing complaint source 
> with non-corresponding newer binaries.
>
> > You're probably best know in this group as the guy who likes to 
> > Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove the goalposts -- keep trying 
> > Hyman. Just keep trying.
>
> The goalpost is compliance with the GPL when distributing software. 
> As always.
>
> > In the instant case Erik Andersen wasn't even the original author 
> > of BusyBox v.0.60.3.
>
> Why then would defendant settle and publish?

How would I know DAK?  Maybe they're as dumb as Erik Andersen.
You're as free to speculate about their motive as I am.

Sincerely,
RJack :}