On 2/8/2010 3:26 PM, RJack wrote:
Just a post ago, according to you, Erik Andersen was the
> author of a compilation or collective work.
No. Failure to read, again. I did not say that.
Now a post later, he is the author of "some of it".
Yes.
If he's claiming infringement of busybox-0.60.3 which he claims to author, it has to be a *specific* compilation that was distributed by Best Buy et. al.
That is not true either, but it's not really relevant. (There is no reason why only a single author may have a compilation copyright in a work. There is an original compiler or set of them, and subsequent authors may modify the compilation by creatively rearranging the contributions or adding to them, gaining copyright as well if their work is sufficiently creative.)
If he claims he's the "author of some of it",
> then contrary to his Complaint:
"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program..."
>
Andersen is *not* the author and developer of busybox-0.60.3. He is the author and owner of *some* source code modules (all of which have be modified numerous times by other authors. See the patch history) in a program published in Nov. 2001.
The defendants are free to deny this claim if they wish. But it is only necessary that Andersen hold copyright in some part of the work for him to sue for infringement.
I know you would like to have your cake and eat it too Hyman but the World doesn't work that way. Sorry. If you claim substantial similarity and infringement of a copyrighted work you'd better be prepared to point to that particular work of authorship.
The defendants are free to deny Andersen's claim of copyright in the work, at which point both sides would offer evidence and the court would decide. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
