Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 7:45 AM, RJack wrote:
> > It claims infringement of "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" causes the problem.
>  > Who are people going to believe? You or their lyin' eyes?
> The SFLC does not claim that BusyBox v. 0.60.3 causes the
> infringement problem. This can easily be seen by reading
> the complaint,
> <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>.
> Since you continue to state something that is obviously
> untrue, as can be seen in the document, it is you who
> is lying.

"Each Defendant's distribution of products or firmware that contain
BusyBox without approval or authorization by Plaintiffs infringes
Plaintiffs' exclusive copyrights in BusyBox pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

Now go read 17 U.S.C. § 501 (including § 411 referenced by subsection
(b) of § 501) silly Hyman.

Hint: the only registered Busybox copyright allegedly owned by
Plaintiffs (actually only Erik) according to the utter fraudulent
registration is BusyBox v. 0.60.3. 

Got it now silly Hyman?

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

(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

Reply via email to