Hyman Rosen wrote:

>On 4/13/2010 9:37 AM, RJack wrote:
>> 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.

What kind of a stupid POS would one have to be, to claim, as "RJack"
does above, that one can take, for free, a bunch of copyrighted
software, use it as the basis of your product, then being required
only to make redunantly available the original bunch of of software
that you took (which, obviously, was *already* available from wherever
it was taken).

An *incredibly* stupid POS, IMO...

>No, that is false. The defendants are required to make available the
>source to the version of BusyBox which they copy and distribute.

I wonder what the anti-GPL cranks are being paid to make public
jackasses of themselves on these issues.

gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to