Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 4/13/2010 10:09 AM, RJack wrote:
Samsung isn't infringing copyrights.
It is, by copying and distributing GPL-covered software without
complying with the GPL.
So... I'll just ask the question once again. Where is the link to
"BusyBox 0.60.3" which was registered and then claimed as the
infringed work in the SFLC's Comtrend Corp. lawsuit?
The SFLC lawsuit does not claim 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>.
The infringed work is "BusyBox". The defendants are required to make
available the version of the BusyBox source code used to create the
binary which they are copying and distributing.
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>.
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.
Sincerely,
RJasck :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
