|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement |
Date: | Tue, 04 May 2010 16:13:57 -0000 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 12:43 PM, RJack wrote:Your cited case is about statutes of limitations in compilationsRegardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact thatthe court stated <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane> McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s owncontributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright.
Whose copyrights? McFarlane’s or Gaiman’s? You are wasting time trying to twist dicta in the Seventh Circuit into prevailing law of the Second Circuit. The GPL license will be Dead on Arrival via a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss long, long before any discovery concerning ownership rights ever begin. The whole point of this discussion is the fact that the GPL license is unenforceable. Erik Andersens's code ownership might be of concern to Bruce Perens but I couldn't care less who owns what code in BusyBox. BusyBox is a 95% plagiarized knockoff of BSD4.4-lite code released under an illegal GPL license. Sincerely, RJack :
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |