Ha. Ha. Someone nicknamed "codswallet" opined: ------ Busybox the plot thickens - is Ravicher = cornstarch?
Well Busybox [Bell Micro] finally responded. They claim that they were negotiating with the SFLC, who gave them extensions on the response deadline, and they have the draft proposals to prove it. And, moreover they've been offering source for download (200+ megabytes) on the Hammer site, since June 11. Moreover they claim that they have no idea what is in the boxes, since the firmware is installed in Taiwan by the vendor. They post the source code they were given. So it appears that 1) The SFLC violated several of the bar's ethical rules 2) May not have registered the copyright while getting a judgment 3) May have made material misrepresentations to the court. 4) Hammer is covered for the boxes under 109 "ยง 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord42 (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord". 5) El Corton noticed that the GPL says: "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: " It doesn't say you may neither copy nor distribute, and it is indisputable that you may copy without distributing. By symmetry, you should be able to distribute without copying.. This implies any action should be against the manufacturer or maybe with the commerce dept. to block the import. 6) So if the SFLC has a case, it's for posting the object code for their customers. This, however isn't distribution, but only copying as we've seen in the recent RIAA cases. You'd have to say that the copies made by customers were unlawful and they were infringing making Hammer a contributing infringer. But the customers are copying without distributing, so can they infringe? 7) The GPL2 isn't well written by modern standards, and this foolishness is the result. Dubious lawyering by the SFLC won't help. It's past time to switch to GPL3. I predict the judge will be very unhappy. We'll see who he is unhappy with. It's partly his own fault, which will make him even madder. It usually does. He'll have to lift the judgment, or he'll get reamed on appeal. ------ Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Consider > > http://www.terekhov.de/7.pdf > > v. > > http://www.terekhov.de/12.pdf regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
