RJack <u...@example.net> writes:

> 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.

No surprise here, it says so itself.  If you don't heed its conditions,
however, you can't claim its permissions.

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

Yup.  That's what makes the GPL relevant if you want to copy or
distribute when you have no other permission from the rights holder.

> 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.

How about moving the goalpost in your head from that lie?  The GPL does
not demand access to the source code of "registered versions".  It
demands access to versions _corresponding_ to the binaries.  The
registration shows material for which infringement is claimed.

David Kastrup
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to