On 3/22/2010 3:56 PM, RJack wrote:
Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims (falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court jurisdiction to hear infringement claims.
As a registered copyright holder of v.0.60.3 he is also a copyright holder of all derivative works based on v.0.60.3. If a defendant argues that they are copying and distributing a later version, the plaintiff will simply register that one with the copyright office. Defendant will then likely not be liable for statutory infringement on that version, since it was not registered when the infringement took place, but they will be enjoined from continuing to copy and distribute it. And actually, that's likely to have a sensitive dependence on the judge, because some judges may decide that given the many derivative works created through the routine process of computer programming, having one version registered is enough.
In the instant case Erik Andersen wasn't even the original author of BusyBox v.0.60.3.
There is no need to be an original author to hold copyright in a work. He is the author of a derivative work of the original BusyBox. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
