Hyman Rosen wrote:
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.

That is a straw man argument. We are discussing the Best Buy et al case
filed in the SDNY.

To institute the Best Buy et al suit, the plaintiff was required by
statute to identify the allegedly infringed work's registration:

"§ 411 · Registration and civil infringement actions
(a) Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the
author under section 106A(a), and subject to the provisions of
subsection (b), no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any
United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance
with this title."

The plaintiffs identified the registered work in the Best Buy et al

"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)."

To claim even a *hypothetical* compliance due to the SFLC filed lawsuit,
you must demonstrate a working link to the source code to the GPL
covered work that was registered and allegedly infringed. Since you can
demonstrate no such link to the allegedly infringed code, you lose.

Your only hope is to mooooooooooooooooooooooooove the goalpost and
fraudulently claim the lawsuit caused "compliance" with some other
unregistered source code work. You lose.

RJack :)

gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to