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. " 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 such as http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ in which (1) "the Software Freedom Conservancy" is utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because it doesn't own ANY busybox copyrights and (2) Erik Andersen is also utterly frivolous 'plaintiff' because he was NOT joined by Bruce Perens and other contributors to the joint work known as busybox at http://busybox.net/. 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. "the registered work is a compilation" Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
