In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <user@example.net> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/2010 4:43 PM, RJack wrote:
Ahhhh... a frank admission of noinfringement.
Copying and distribution of GPL-covered works without following
the requirements of the GPL is infringement of the copyrights
of the rights holders. Even assuming the lawsuit is faulty for
not having the correct version registered, copyright
infringement is occurring regardless.
How can the plaintiff even know which version of Busybox has been
distributed? It is likely that the defendants have customised
Busybox to their own requirements, hence what they distribute
won't match ANY properly released version. It's thus silly to
expect the plaintiffs to specify the exact version, and US law is
surely not _that_ silly.
So... do you propose charging a defendant with copyright
infringement of unidentified code? People scream bloody murder when
Microsoft alludes to Linux violating its unidentified patents.
Not at all. The code has been identified as being some version of
Busybox. All versions of Busybox are copyrighted by its writers.
The situation is a bit analogous to taking a copyright book, changing
a few words here and there, then maintaining it's not identical to
the registered book, so it's not subject to copyright.
Remember the Best Buy et. al. scheduling order?
No.
It makes perfect sense to force a plaintiff to identify with
specificity his original work that was allegedly infringed.
yes. That work is called Busybox. I think your assumption here is
that two copyright works are either identical or different, and that
there're no shades of grey between these extremes. I doubt the
courts subscribe to that view.