Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/12/2010 12:43 PM, RJack wrote:
Your cited case is about statutes of limitations in compilations
Regardless of what the case is about, it is nevertheless a fact that
the court stated <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane>
McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim
copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own
contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices
did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to
a suit to enforce a copyright.
Whose copyrights? McFarlane’s or Gaiman’s? You are wasting time trying
to twist dicta in the Seventh Circuit into prevailing law of the Second
The GPL license will be Dead on Arrival via a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss
long, long before any discovery concerning ownership rights ever begin.
The whole point of this discussion is the fact that the GPL license is
unenforceable. Erik Andersens's code ownership might be of concern to
Bruce Perens but I couldn't care less who owns what code in
BusyBox. BusyBox is a 95% plagiarized knockoff of BSD4.4-lite code
released under an illegal GPL license.
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list