Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
[In a typical silly net flamewar, one might explain it as simple
pigheadedness and unwillingness to admit error (AFAICT, these are the
common driving forces), but he's been spewing his bile so frequently,
and for so long, it seems like there must be _some_
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Victor Tarabola Cortiano
victorcorti...@gmail.com wrote:
[In a typical silly net flamewar, one might explain it as simple
pigheadedness and unwillingness to admit error (AFAICT, these are the
common driving forces), but he's been spewing his bile so frequently,
On 2/22/2010 12:14 PM, Victor Tarabola Cortiano wrote:
How do one steals free software?
By not complying with the conditions its rights holders
have specified for permitting its copying and distribution.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Victor Tarabola Cortiano writes:
How do one steals free software?
BY making off with copies (i.e., tangible property) belonging to someone
else.
Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is
not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong).
--
John
John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote:
Copyright infringement is not theft (and no, that does not mean it is
not illegal nor is a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong).
That was my point :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
... rants incoherently ...
Your rants are obviously not helping either your case, your reputation,
or your mood.
Why bother?
Something I've always wondered.
Terekhov's endless anti-free-software diatribes must
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The version numbers on the source and binary links match.
LOL!!! But what makes you think that it is a complete corresponding
source code under the GNU GPL, silly Hyman?
If the sources did not build or work, the first user
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article 4b7d8706.c45ed...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman, you're really crank.
What language is this?
I mean that Hyman is really a crackpot.
Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental
principle, no science would
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Calling something intentionally different a corresponding source without
it being so in order to fulfill licensing conditions would be active
fraud, not just negligence.
Uh silly dak. Breaching unenforceable contractual licensing conditions
is fraud only in
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article 4b7d8706.c45ed...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman, you're really crank.
What language is this?
I mean that Hyman is really a crackpot.
It's really a good thing nobody is paying you
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/18/2010 6:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, are seriously claiming that they are complete corresponding
source code under the GNU GPL for
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Yes.
Because the version numbers on the links match, right you
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
LMAO! Uh retard Hyman.
Hyman? Your attention span really is at zero right now. Have you
been drinking again?
Not yet. Do you seriously dispute that you both are crackpots? LOL.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you
make of yourself.
Says GNUtian clown http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html dak. LMAO!
[Y]ou often have people with a bad judgment concerning
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
LMAO! Uh retard Hyman.
Hyman? Your attention span really is at zero right now. Have you
been drinking again?
Not yet. Do you seriously dispute that you both are crackpots?
If we were, we would still be different.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It's really a good thing nobody is paying you for the sad spectacle you
make of yourself.
Says GNUtian clown
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/17/2010 6:48 PM, RJack wrote:
Whatever (unverifiable) source code that is provided out there (if
in fact there is any) is years old, out of datesource modules that
mock the claim gaining compliance. You simply can't verify what's
posted out there any more than you can
On 2/18/2010 11:38 AM, RJack wrote:
Claiming it is very easy is just another unverified claim. You're
entitled to your own opinion but not your own unverified facts. Sorry.
Claiming that my claim is unverified is very easy, but false.
I have explained how verification can be accomplished - use
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
I have explained how verification can be accomplished - use the
sources to build the binary, and see if that binary matches the
distributed one.
Why don't you try to perform your own verification and post here the
results, silly Hyman?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. It is
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/18/2010 11:38 AM, RJack wrote:
Claiming it is very easy is just another unverified claim. You're
entitled to your own opinion but not your own unverified facts.
Sorry.
Claiming that my claim is unverified is very easy, but false. I have
explained how verification
On 2/18/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you try to perform your own verification and post
here the results
Because I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux
system so that I can do the builds.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/18/2010 12:45 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you try to perform your own verification and post
here the results
Because I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux
system so that I can do the builds.
Stop making an utter idiot of yourself,
On 2/18/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:
They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone
else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your*
facts for you.
Your facts require the belief that after settling the lawsuits,
the defendants set up the ability for
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 2/18/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote:
They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone
else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your*
facts for you.
Your facts require the belief that after settling the lawsuits,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
to do so make their local changes. If that renders the router
Go try making local changes regarding
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
and report your results back here, silly dak. It won't happen, I know,
you silly dak.
regards,
alexander.
On 2/18/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go try making local changes regarding
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
and report your results back here
The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[magical source code]
available at http://opensource.actiontec.com/, and
offer physical copies for $10 as well.
Why don't you try it yourself (checking whether the offered source code
corresponds to the complete corresponding source code under the GNU
GPL), silly Hyman? Is
On 2/18/2010 3:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Why don't you try it yourself (checking whether the offered source code
corresponds to the complete corresponding source code under the GNU
GPL)? Is it because you are insufficiently motivated to go
set up a GNU/Linux system so that you can do the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... excuse ...]
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. It is
On 2/18/2010 3:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence.
The defendants in each of the SFLC cases now have web sites
from which they serve the GPLed sources for the binaries they
distribute. If a GPL crank wishes to assert that these sources
do
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... crank ... crank ... crank ... crank ...]
Take your meds and call your doctor, retard Hyman.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I can do the builds.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/18/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Go try making local changes regarding
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and report
your results back here
The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is accompanied
by source found at
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
to do so make their local changes. If that renders the router
Go try making local changes regarding
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
and report your results back here, silly dak. It won't happen,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... excuse ...]
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
How about doing that yourself?
--
David Kastrup
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On 2/18/2010 4:30 PM, RJack wrote:
Your links lead back to an old Actiontec site -- not Verizon.
What does old mean? Alexander's beloved page,
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp,
links to
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... excuse ...]
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
How about doing that yourself?
What evidence do you want from me stupid dak? That
On 2/18/2010 5:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is not backed by the complete corresponding source code under the GNU
GPL
The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... excuse ...]
Stop making claims that you can't support with evidence, silly Hyman.
How about doing that yourself?
What evidence do you want from
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... ResidentialHelp ...]
Yes, you really need it (Residential Help) Hyman.
But it has nothing to do with the missing complete corresponding source
code under the GNU GPL for
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
you retard.
regards,
alexander.
P.S.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
What evidence do you want from me stupid dak? That
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
is not backed by the complete corresponding source code under the GNU
GPL you silly?
You got the links already.
Now tell me that you really tried
On 2/18/2010 5:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
But it has nothing to do with the missing complete corresponding source
code under the GNU GPL for
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
The version numbers on the source and binary links match.
LOL!!! But what makes you think that it is a complete corresponding
source code under the GNU GPL, silly Hyman?
regards,
alexander.
P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system
so that I
On 2/18/2010 6:02 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The version numbers on the source and binary links match.
LOL!!! But what makes you think that it is a complete corresponding
source code under the GNU GPL?
Because Verizon and Actiontec are making the source code
available,
On 2/18/2010 6:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman, are seriously claiming that they are complete corresponding
source code under the GNU GPL for
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
Yes.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/18/2010 5:46 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Now tell me that you really tried to visit those links (Hyman's
Residential Help links) and build the binaries from that 'source'
you silly dak. Did you try that?
The version numbers on the source and binary links match.
On 2/16/2010 5:46 PM, RJack wrote:
[T]he Copyright Law is quite specific in stating that
only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring
suit;
Erik Andersen himself is a party to the suit, rendering all of
this argument moot.
___
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Erik Andersen himself is a party to the suit, rendering all of
How come that the the suit is named (go check it on pacer silly Hyman)
as
Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al
you idiot.
U.S. District Court
United States District Court
On 2/17/2010 9:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How come that the the suit is named as
Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. and
ERIK ANDERSEN,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... copyright enforcement agent ...]
Hyman, you're really crank.
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/402/881/510088/
Eden apparently believed that a third basis for standing under the
Copyright Act existed, namely authorization by the copyright holder of
suit by
On 2/17/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Got it now?
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. and
ERIK ANDERSEN,
Plaintiffs
-against-
BEST BUY CO.,INC.,...
Erik
On 2/17/2010 9:29 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
How come that the the suit is named as
Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. and
ERIK ANDERSEN,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/17/2010 10:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Got it now?
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY, INC. and
Hyman, you're really crank.
On 2/17/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of rights
under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
SOFTWARE FREEDOM
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[... A and B ...]
0 + 0 = 0
regards,
alexander.
P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act.
Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane
P.P.S. We do not believe that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/17/2010 11:36 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of rights
under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
On 2/17/2010 1:15 PM, RJack wrote:
The SFLC attorneys filed seven consecutive frivolous
infringement suits for Erik Andersen over BusyBox code when Andersen had
not filed *anything* -- nada, null, nil -- with the Copyright Office.
Filing seven consecutive suits without standing is frivolous and
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The SFLC is gaining compliance with the GPL. People are free to
donate to whatever cause they like, and some people like to donate to
organizations that help gain compliance with the GPL. Perhaps you
should start your own organization that helps defend people against
the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/13/2010 7:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A collective work can also be a joint work
It certainly can be, if all the authors of the collective
work intend it to be so. That intent must be demonstrated.
Since the BusyBox is licensed only under the GPL, its
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/12/2010 8:09 PM, RJack wrote:
The developers submit patches or a new source code module that
amounts at most to a few hundreds of bytes.
The BusyBox (remember -- a single program) source tarball when
unzipped is 7.75 *million* bytes.
The claim that checking in a *few
On 2/16/2010 6:46 AM, RJack wrote:
First, to
support a copyright the original aspects of a derivative work must be
more than trivial. Second, the scope of protection afforded a derivative
work must reflect the degree to which it relies on preexisting material
and must not in any way affect the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
2) Your theory says BusyBox is [a sequence of derivative works]
I'll leave it to you to identify the individual contributions and
ownership claims in this 7.7 million byte derivative work when
you address the court.
Every author has ownership in the pieces of work he has
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
every version after he has contributed changes. As we know from Gaiman
We know from Gaiman that the GPL says nothing about going to the toilet
from time to time, but does that mean that GPL'd work authors are never
pissing and
shitting, Hyman?
regards,
alexander.
P.S.
I just can't resist to poke stupid Hyman once again...
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
affect or disparage ownership claims of the other authors. Registration
then allows the author to sue for infringement.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
The suit was filed on
On 2/16/2010 12:06 PM, RJack wrote:
Obviously, If you author a derivative work you *must* be able to
identify the owners of the one or more preexisting works *that you
modified*.
No, that's not true, and does not follow from anything
you quoted. To create a derivative work you must have
On 2/16/2010 2:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy
(Conservancy)
Hey Hyman, care to find any copyright registrations addressed to/from
the Software Freedom
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/16/2010 12:06 PM, RJack wrote:
Obviously, If you author a derivative work you *must* be able to
identify the owners of the one or more preexisting works *that you
modified*.
No, that's not true, and does not follow from anything you quoted. To
create a derivative
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/16/2010 2:01 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
The suit was filed on behalf of the Software Freedom Conservancy
(Conservancy) Hey Hyman, care to find any copyright registrations
addressed to/from the
On 2/16/2010 4:09 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to
create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law
as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'.
The work is licensed. There is no reason
On 2/16/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote:
[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits holders of
rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring suits on their
behalf.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2009/busybox-complaint-2009-12-14.pdf
SOFTWARE FREEDOM
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
On 2/16/2010 4:09 PM, RJack wrote:
Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to
create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law
as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'.
RJack wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/16/2010 4:18 PM, RJack wrote:
[Note 3] ... We do not believe that the Copyright Act permits
holders of rights under copyrights to choose third parties to bring
suits on their behalf.
On 2/12/2010 8:09 PM, RJack wrote:
The developers submit patches or a new source code module that amounts
at most to a few hundreds of bytes.
The BusyBox (remember -- a single program) source tarball when
unzipped is 7.75 *million* bytes.
The claim that checking in a *few hundred bytes* of new
On 2/12/2010 8:09 PM, RJack wrote:
Oh. I understand now! You have invented a new copyright concept
called a derivative-collective work. It is either a collective work or
a derivative work depending on how you feel at the moment. That's kind
of convenient just like copyleft isn't it?
A
On 2/13/2010 7:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
A collective work can also be a joint work
It certainly can be, if all the authors of the collective
work intend it to be so. That intent must be demonstrated.
Since the BusyBox is licensed only under the GPL, its
authors have indicated that it
RJack wrote:
[...]
Oh. I understand now! You have invented a new copyright concept
called a derivative-collective work. It is either a collective work or
a derivative work depending on how you feel at the moment. That's kind
Well, reorganizing some preexisting collection to form a new
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
a collective work formed from the contributions of its
A collective work can also be a joint work you silly.
regards,
alexander.
P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act.
Hyman's
SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
case.
The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
Moglen claims are conditions and quickly file the license in the
court's little round
RJack u...@example.net writes:
SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
case.
Once the defendants have agreed to come into compliance and pay the
incurred costs, that's the usual course. Do you have any information
pertaining to that?
The SFLC cannot risk a judge
RJack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:oosdnvn5rvxl2ojwnz2dnuvz_odi4...@giganews.com...
Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:
One can only wonder how many of these things are necessary for the FSF and
SFLC and Moglen (which seem to be MOL synonymous terms). I don't
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes:
RJack u...@example.net wrote in message
news:oosdnvn5rvxl2ojwnz2dnuvz_odi4...@giganews.com...
Another frivolous lawsuit to which the SFLC can spin:
One can only wonder how many of these things are necessary for the FSF
and SFLC and Moglen (which seem to
rat wrote:
Depending on your view of the whole thing, they are either
Maybe rats are only capable of seeing those two views, but those of us
who are not rats interpret the situation differently.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack u...@example.net wrote:
SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
case.
The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract which Eben
Moglen claims are conditions
Rex Ballard rex.ball...@gmail.com writes:
On Feb 12, 7:13 am, RJack u...@example.net wrote:
SFLC voluntary dismissals should be coming soon in Best Buy et. al.
case.
The SFLC cannot risk a judge actually interpreting the GPL license.
The court would read the covenants in the GPL contract
On 2/12/2010 8:07 AM, amicus_curious wrote:
These cases seem to center around some unsuspecting developer making the
fatal mistake of using the BusyBox utilities for some embedded computer
device and failing to pay homage to the FOSSers by posting yet another
copy of the BusyBox source code
On 2/12/2010 1:23 PM, RJack wrote:
JUST SHOW ME THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.
Settlement agreements are usually private arrangements between
the parties, and are not available for public review. As outside
observers, we can only examine public results. In every case the
SFLC has filed, the
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/12/2010 1:23 PM, RJack wrote:
JUST SHOW ME THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.
Settlement agreements are usually private arrangements between the
parties, and are not available for public review. As outside
observers, we can only examine public results. In every case the SFLC
On 2/12/2010 1:48 PM, RJack wrote:
Alexander has proven that claim to be false.
He has not, if you mean with respect to Verizon.
The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is
accompanied by source found at
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/12/2010 8:07 AM, amicus_curious wrote:
These cases seem to center around some unsuspecting developer
making the fatal mistake of using the BusyBox utilities for some
embedded computer device and failing to pay homage to the FOSSers
by posting yet another copy of the
On 2/12/2010 2:27 PM, RJack wrote:
17 USC 101 A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors
with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable
or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.
And therefore a work is not a joint work if every author
has not so
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/12/2010 2:27 PM, RJack wrote:
17 USC 101 A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more
authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into
inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.
And therefore a work is not a joint work if every author
On 2/12/2010 3:39 PM, RJack wrote:
Which BusyBox authors do not intend for their contributions to
become interdependent parts merged into the BusyBox program?
BusyBox authors create independent or derivative works
(depending on whether the code they are writing is new
or is a modification of
Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 2/12/2010 3:39 PM, RJack wrote:
Which BusyBox authors do not intend for their contributions to
become interdependent parts merged into the BusyBox program?
BusyBox authors create independent or derivative works (depending on
whether the code they are writing is new or
91 matches
Mail list logo
