On 4/13/2010 9:37 AM, RJack wrote:
The SFLC lawsuit claims that BusyBox 0.60.3 is the infringed work, as can easily be seen by reading the complaint, <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf>.
It is silly for you to continually lie about what an easily read document states. The complaint alleges that the defendants infringe on "BusyBox", not on a specific version. The only mention of a specific version is <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf> 31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008). Plaintiff Software Freedom Conservancy is the corporate home for the BusyBox project and the designated copyright enforcement agent for Mr. Andersen with respect to BusyBox. It is possible that the court will decide it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the versions which the defendants are copying and distributing because those versions are not registered. In that case, the plaintiffs will register those versions and refile their claim. I don't know whether all circuits have the requirement that each separate version must be registered, as was the case in the SimplexGrinell decision. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809>
The plaintiffs are required to make available with specificity (i.e. non-moving target) the registered version (v. 0.60.3) of the BusyBox source code used to create the binary which they allege is copied and distributed, not the source code to some other BusyBox version.
No, that is false. The defendants are required to make available the source to the version of BusyBox which they copy and distribute. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss