Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/9/2010 11:07 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > A copyright claim requires to identify PARTICULAR EXPRESSION
> Yes, so?
>
> > Why don't you post here "their GPL source code"?
> For what?
>
> > What "their GPL source code" are you talking about?
> The source code of BusyBox.
>
> As usual, you are failing to communicate.
>
> BusyBox is a program in which the SFLC plaintiffs hold copyright. It
> is a work which is in constant modification, so there are many
> versions of it. Each modification is a derivative work of the version
> modified, and therefore any rights holder in a particular version is
> also a rights holder in all subsequent versions.

You can only claim infringement for works that *you* own.
Register *your* contribution and stop claiming rights to
ownership of a derivative work as a whole.

> The only permission to copy and distribute BusyBox comes via its
> license, the GPL. If defendants are copying and distributing any
> version of BusyBox without complying with the GPL, then they are
> infringing copyright. It may be that in some circuits, it is
> necessary that the rights holders have registered the specific
> version alleged to be infringed, in which case the plaintiffs can
> register that version and refile their claims, with the only effect
> being that they can not claim statutory damages for the infringement
> which occurred prior to the registration.

Stop making up stuff Hyman. You sound ridiculous.

Sincerely,
RJack :)