Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

On 8/9/2010 11:30 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 4:21 PM, RJack wrote:
> > The above mentioned claim is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 and is
> > legally unenforceable.
>
> 17 USC 301 is the law which says that states may not make their own
> laws equivalent to copyright. It has nothing at all to do with the
> GPL, since the GPL is a license that grants additional permissions
> otherwise forbidden by federal copyright law.
>
> > Basic stuff made up by the FSF and stuff that is legally
> > unenforceable.
>
> All licenses are "made up" by their creators. The license is not
> enforceable, but copyright is. The license grants permissions that
> would not otherwise be available under plain copyright law, but it
> grants those permissions only provided the conditions it specifies
> are met.
>
> > The thieves are GPL licensors who try to steal other folks
> > copyrights with an illegal license.
>
> The license is legal, and its acceptance is voluntary, so it cannot
> steal anything. No one can ever be forced to accept the GPL, but
> also no one (aside from the copyright holder) may copy and
> distribute GPL-covered works without accepting it. The only
> "stealing" comes from people who want to copy and distribute
> GPL-covered works without accepting the conditions which permit
> that.

Under the criminal statutes, the crime of "attempted conversion" is an
attempt to exert unauthorized control over others property.

Using the GPL is attempting to seize control over all downstream third
parties' *exclusively owned* copyrights -- that *is* attempting to steal
in ever sense of the word.

Sincerely,
RJack :)