Hyman Rosen wrote:

That is the point of view of anti-GPL cranks, but no court has yet found this to be so. And it is copyright law which is enforceable. Copyright law prohibits GPL-covered code from being copied and distributed without complying with the conditions of the GPL.

No U.S. court has ever found the GPL to be enforceable.

You've got it Hyman! It is quite true that copyright law is enforceable:

"Title 17 USC § 301 · Preemption with respect to other laws.
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are
equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of
copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are
fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject
matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether
created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished,
are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is
entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under
the common law or statutes of any State."

"House Report 94 -1976
The intention of section 301 is to preempt and abolish any rights under
the common law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to copyright
and that extend to works coming within the scope of the Federal
copyright law. The declaration of this principle in section 301 is
intended to be stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language
possible, so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of its
unqualified intention that Congress shall act preemptively, and to avoid
the development of any vague borderline areas between State and Federal

Bye bye General Public License! Only a complete fucking moron would
claim to have written a "General Public" scope license that controls
copyrights outside of contractual privity. ROFL.

"Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J.
2. A concise statement of the issues as they then appear;

Pending results of Defendants' investigations, Defendants
intend to show that the Plaintiff's have no damages, that
the Defendants did nothing actionable under copyright law, that
any alleged copying was not willful, that Plaintiffs are not
the proper parties, that the copyright held by Mr. Andersen
is not applicable, and that, since being put on notice of
the purported requirements of the general public license,
Defendants have endeavored to come into compliance with what
can only be described as a 'moving target'."


So... I'll ask the question once more. Where is the link to "BusyBox
0.60.3" which was registered and claimed in the SFLC lawsuit as the
infringed work? Time to put up or shut up. No
mooooooooooooooooooooooving the goalposts allowed.

RJack :)

gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to