gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues


From: RJack
Subject: Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:56:26 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)

RJack wrote:
RJack wrote:

The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS, LLC states:

"4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed to be version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn ¶ 10; SMF ¶ 14. While Mr. Andersen owns copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the copyright registration here was for the next subsequent version of BusyBox, v0.60.3. D. Andersen ¶ 4; SMF ¶ 4. However, since Mr. Andersen “is the owner of the copyright of both the derivative and preexisting work, the registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' infringement of the preexisting work.” Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998). Thus, the registration for v0.60.3 constitutes registration for v0.60.2 as well."

The official source for v0.60.2 is here:

http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz

A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's name
 appears in the following files:

I found some more files in the source tree v0.60.2. mentioning Erik Andersen where the original authors' licensed source code has been claimed by Andersen and placed under the GPL. See:

"Mr. Andersen, his past employers and Mr. Landley appear to have removed some of the copyright statements of other Busybox developers,
 and appear to have altered license statements, in apparent violation
of various laws." -- Bruce Perens. http://perens.com/blog/d/2009/12/15/23/

How convenient that a default judgment could mask all the underlying
 lies in this lawsuit.

Erik Andersen now states:
"While Mr. Andersen owns copyright in portions of that version of
BusyBox...".

Erik has now registered "portions" of the "single computer program"
BusyBox v0.60.3 with the Copyright Office but has totally failed to
identify what those specific "portions" are that he actually claims. He
continues to claim:

"However, since Mr. Andersen 'is the owner of the copyright of both the
derivative and preexisting work, the registration certificate relating
to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to permit it to
maintain an action for infringement based on defendants' infringement of
the preexisting work.'”.

So... he now owns *his* own derivative "portions" of BusyBox that he has
never identified to anyone. (Erik is on his knees praying that the court
somehow now believes that he owns the "single computer program" known as
"BusyBox v0.60.2".)

His sole evidence for copyright infringement is the appearance of a
character string in a binary ramdisk image containing the text string
"v0.60.2". Is it any wonder that the 3/22/2010 Scheduling Order stated:

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J.
...
2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear;

Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants
intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that
the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that
any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not
the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen
is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of
the purported requirements of the general public license,
Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what
can only be described as a 'moving target'."

----------------------------------------------------------
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."
"[w]hat can only be described as a 'moving target'."

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Sincerely,
RJack :)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]