In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients, > who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service > they are receiving.
What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in the lawsuits as the copyright owners). It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so registration is a prerequisite to suit. Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is Busybox actually a non-US Berne work? -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
