In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> We shall see, in the fullness of time. However, it's not a >> fraudulent claim. It would appear that busybox's copyright has been >> violated, and Erik Andersen is a copyright holder. Huh???? >> If a case is dismissed on a technicality, that isn't fraud. > Nice try Alan. The "technicality" to which you speak is the United > States Copyright Act, Title 17 USC. This is the same tactic taken by > your anarchist mentors like RMS and Eben Moglen -- if it doesn't fit > your philosophy then it's just a legal "technicality". Look, let's just wait and see, OK? You don't know the full particulars of this case any more than I do. And you reckon your understanding of USA copyright law exceeds Eben Moglen's, do you? If so, on what basis? >> Further speculation seems pointless. > Ye Gads, Alan! Thank you, thank you. Admitting that what you are > claiming is SPECULATION is a first step towards atonement and spiritual > enlightenment!!!. I reckon you're doing the speculating. You're also very unsure of yourself, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a song and dance about it. I've said what my prediction is. You've said what yours is, namely Erik Andersen and the SFLC will get blown out of court due to a "fraudulent" claim and find themselves having to pay the bills of 14 companies' lawyers. We shall see. > Sincerely, > RJack -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
