On 4/15/2010 3:57 PM, RJack wrote:
Undisputed fact 1) There has never been a link to "BusyBox v. 0.60.3" published by any BusyBox defendant in an SFLC suit -- ever.
No one is obligated to distribute the source to BusyBox v. 0.60.3 unless they are distributing that version of the binary. They are obligated to distribute the source used to build the binary version of BusyBox which they are copying and distributing. After each case brought by the SFLC has ended, they have in fact done this.
Undisputed fact 2) No court has ever granted *any* relief requested by any BusyBox plaintiff -- ever.
This is because the defendants agree to comply with the GPL, and therefore there is no further matter for the court to decide. This is exactly how the GPL is designed to work. Compliance is trivially easy, and there is no reason for a legitimate company to fail to do so. The companies being sued by the SFLC have failed to comply with the GPL out of laziness or neglect.
Undisputed fact 3) No settlement agreement concerning a BusyBox suit has been published -- ever.
Settlement agreements are often kept private. However, compliance with the GPL has so far been public, and in every case where a suit brought by the SFLC ended, the defendants have come into compliance with the GPL, publicly, as evidenced by the ability to download GPL-compliant sources from their web sites.
Who are we to believe? A Marxist GPL crackpot who claims a copyright license is not a contract or our own lyin' eyes?
There is nothing to believe except your own eyes, because the GPL-compliant sources are made publicly available by the former defendants. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss