|
From: | Hyman Rosen |
Subject: | Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk |
Date: | Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:50:10 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 |
On 2/10/2010 6:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...]All the plaintiffs need to show is that Andersen holds copyright in a part of BusyBox, and that the defendants are copying and distributing it without permission.http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/ Larry Rosen correctly noted: "Under US copyright law, only “the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right is entitled ... to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right...” 17 USC 501. So if all you have is a non-exclusive license, or indeed if all you have is joint ownership, you cannot enforce that copyright in court without the other owners joining in. "
Fortunately, Erik Andersen is the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right, not a non-exclusive right or a joint ownership. He owns his exclusive right by being an author of (some of) the content of BusyBox. BusyBox is not a joint work because all of its authors have not declared their intention that it be a joint work.
At some point, the New York bar will have no choice but to disbar the entire gang of utterly incompetent GNU arch legal beagles from SFLC for consistent filing of frivolous lawsuits
Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys!
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |