RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > Just for once Hyman, try to read the Complaint. Andersen claims > (falsely) that he owns BusyBox, v.0.60.3 -- that's exactly what he > re4gistered with the Copyright Office. His claim to ownership of > BusyBox, v.0.60.3 is the *only* thing that gives the court > jurisdiction to hear infringement claims. > > You can't register Donald Duck with the Copyright Office and then > claim infringement over Daffy Duck.
The complaint is not relevant for a settlement out of court anyway. The past misconduct can't be cured by distributing complaint source with non-corresponding newer binaries. > You're probably best know in this group as the guy who likes to > Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove the goalposts -- keep trying > Hyman. Just keep trying. The goalpost is compliance with the GPL when distributing software. As always. > In the instant case Erik Andersen wasn't even the original author of > BusyBox v.0.60.3. Why then would defendant settle and publish? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
