Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 3:55 PM, RJack wrote:
> > *Allegedly* distributed
>
> If the defendants believe and wish to assert that they are not 
> distributing BusyBox, they are free to do so.
Have you read the defendants Answers to Complaint? ROFL.

> > The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox
>
> They own the copyright of any modifications they have made. The 
> combined work of BusyBox which contains their copyrighted work may 
> not be distributed without their permission, and such permission is 
> only through the GPL.
The *broken* GPL.

> > The plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any* 
> > version of Busybox registered
>
> This is manifestly false, since he already has such a version 
> successfully registered.

This is manifestly true since he already has fraudulently
registered a version of Busybox that he doesn't own -- which is
contrary to copyright law.

You can spin but you can't win.

> > Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
> >  source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever* 
> > successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because 
> > the original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle.
>
> Unfortunately for you, copyright law makes no provision allowing the
>  copying and distribution of copyrighted works without permission on
>  grounds of complexity of ownership.

The broken GPL gives the defendants permission to copy and distribute.
Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, copyright law does not allow
registration of works you don't own.

You can spin but you can't win.

Sincerely,
RJack :)