Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Spamowitz Roy http://boycott-boycottnovell.com/index.php/the-news/88-roy-schestowitz-demands-expansion-of-qgodwins-lawq wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Copyrights and wrongs http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2010/02/08/copyrights-and-wrongs/ See comments. Huh? In comments, 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. -- 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
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: 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/. Under your legal theories, Apple could not sue for violation of MacOSX licenses unless Berkeley university joins their lawsuit. But it's certainly not the first time that the reality in the courts does not match your wet dreams. You'll be sulking over drunken judges and whatever else soon again, no doubt. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 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/. The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. I understand how frustrating it must be for the GPL skeptics to see such untrammeled success, and how they must hope for some external force to appear and turn things their way. But that won't happen. You are also quite wrong about joint works in at leats four separate ways. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html, According to the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint work jointly own the copyright in the work they create. A joint work is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright Act as a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint owner can use or license the work in the United States without the consent of the other owner, provided that the use does not destroy the value of the work and the parties do not have an agreement requiring the consent of each owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a work must share any royalties he or she receives with the other owners. First, BusyBox is a joint work only if all the authors have agreed to make it so. Given that one of the authors is a party to the suit and can insist that he did not intend to form such a joint work, the plaintiffs might have a difficult time showing otherwise. Second, if BusyBox is a joint work, then each author has full rights in the work and may sue for infringement without needing permission from the other authors. Third, even if BusyBox is a joint work, each contributing author has released his changes under the GPL, and therefore it may be argued that there is an agreement in place among the authors that the only way their work may be copied and distributed is by GPL. Fourth, even if BusyBox is a joint work, the plaintiffs need to demonstrate that they have permission to copy and distribute it in some way other than under the GPL, granted to them by some author of the joint work. That one author has said after the suit was filed that he does not want to be a party to it does not mean that he has granted permission to copy and distribute BusyBox outside of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] A compilation work which you call 'MacOSX' is a collective work (see 17 USC 101 for both 'compilation' and 'collective work') of Apple and only Apple, silly. Without any components with copyright by other parties? The copyright on components (distinct from the compilation work) is totally separate/independent copyright (distinct from the copyright on compilation) you retard dak. So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the other parties joining the suit? Reality check... Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard. Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. It's not a joint work under 17 USC 101. regards, alexander. -- 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
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 11:30 AM, RJack wrote: The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals The words chose and involuntary don't go together. You appear to have ongoing difficulties with the English language, which perhaps explains some of your difficulty understanding the GPL and the law. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? The plaintiffs dismissed their cases once the defendants agreed to a settlement whereby they would comply with the GPL, as evidenced by the fact that after the cases were ended, all the defendants came into compliance with the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: So for any component with copyrighted parts from other parties (like BSD), Apple could not sue for breach of copyright without having the other parties joining the suit? Reality check... Apple's COMPILATION WORK is NOT A JOINT WORK you retard. Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: 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/. The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before What's automatic and involuntary about dismissals that are filed after settling? any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. At this point, why don't you just piss off and call http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies you retard dak? 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
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Apple took some BSD'd works and included that stuff in a compilation work exclusively (C) by Apple and only Apple. How did the copyright of BSD come to cease on the portions that Apple changed? BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a joint copyright situation for those portions, and anybody can take any parts of Apple's changes and use them without worry, since Apple could only possibly sue if it managed to get Berkeley interested to sue together with them, and Berkeley's choice of license made perfectly clear that Berkeley is not interested much in suing. Do you really not understand why your theories about the GPL case are so absurd and don't stand up to real world cases? At this point, why don't you just piss off and call http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Emergencies you retard dak? It's funny how every time you are shown to be wrong, you holler for doctors, medications, and retards. Not to mention drunk judges. Such a transparent maneuver, and what a pathetic excuse for a smoke screen. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp To Hyman: take your meds first! 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
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp That's a link to a firmware upgrade. This firmware update is applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers. As I hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well. To Hyman: take your meds first! Oh you are running out of arguments again? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSD copyright didn't come to cease (it's too early for expiration and I'm unaware of any abandonment/dedications to the public domain of the BSD'd works) on the BSD'd portions that Apple changed unless Apple's changes resulted in a complete removal of BSD'd protected expression. Ah, so that means that according to your legal theories, we have a joint copyright situation for those portions, and anybody can take any It's quite reasonable to expect that Apple's BSD layer fork known as Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) work may well contain joint copyright portions, dak. I know this whole material is too complicated to grok for someone of your intellectual capacity... Hey GNUtian dak, BTW: http://www.tug.org/interviews/kastrup.html Please note that shareware is not free software. The principal problem with free software as a business model is that there really is little in the way of bootstrapping it. Programmers tend to be mad scientists to some degree or other, and TeX programming mostly has attraction for the worst of those. This means that you often have people with a bad judgment concerning business requirements and project management and time planning and customer interaction. For proprietary software, this is less of a problem: if you are the only supplier for a marketable product, poor market interaction does not kill your business prospects. In a free software market, however, being the developer of a product gives you just a headstart for marketing your own product, but it does not put anybody else out of the race. (LOL) Don't you know that http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Market It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users in general, as a market. right, GNUtian dak? 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
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available There's no reason to do it -- to wit: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp That's a link to a firmware upgrade. This firmware update is applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers. As I hear, those routers come with a manual detailing where to get the source to the firmware. The links have been pointed out to you as well. That where to get is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. 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
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways. 1) The Best Buys et.al. suit filed by the SFLC is in the Second Circuit not the Seventh Circuit of the Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit. 2) The Gaiman_v._McFarlane suit was about a declaration of ownership, not a copy infringement suit. 3) You're mixing out of context apples and oranges issues: POSNER, Circuit Judge. Neil Gaiman brought suit under the Copyright Act against Todd McFarlane and corporations controlled by him that we can ignore, seeking a declaration that he (Gaiman) owns copyrights jointly with McFarlane in certain comic-book characters. Erik Andersen signed a *Complaint* explicitly claiming that: 20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices. Erik Andersen is *not* the author of the single computer program know as BusyBox -- this is a patently false statement. 23. Under the License, Mr. Andersen grants certain permissions to other parties to copy, modify and redistribute BusyBox so long as those parties satisfy certain conditions. Notice that *Mr Andersen* grants... -- doesn't say *the developers* of BusyBox grant... 31. Mr. Andersen is, and at all relevant times has been, a copyright owner under United States copyright law in the FOSS software program known as BusyBox. See, e.g., “BusyBox, v.0.60.3.”, Copyright Reg. No. TX0006869051 (10/2/2008). Here is the release of busybox-0.60.3 that Erik claims he authored. http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/ Decompress it and see if Erik claims a compilation copyright on the arrangement and selection of the source code. Let's grant that he does have a copyright on the arrangement of that specific tarball release. Remember that the copyright resides in the specific arrangement and selection of the constituent elements in a compilation. That was on 27-Apr-2002 (735K). Are you seriously claiming that the fourteen defendants in the pending SFLC suit are infringing *that* particular arrangement “BusyBox, v.0.60.3”? The last 2008 release is busybox-1.13.2.tar.bz2-31-Dec-2008. The source tarball with more efficient compression is 2.0M -- three times as large with thousands of patches. The current SFLC lawsuit is so fucked up it doesn't even deserve the label wrong. Eben Moglen is an incompetent socialist moron. Hyman Rosen sez, The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: The SFLC has had successful outcomes in every single case that it has filed - all defendants have come into compliance with the GPL. No defendant has chosen to fight the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs chose to file automatic involuntary dismissals before What's automatic and involuntary about dismissals that are filed after settling? any judge could ever read their frivolous Complaints. Why why would a plaintiff answer a Complaint that has been dismissed? Why would a defendant make the GPLed sources available in the course of a settlement? If the full force and credibility of your arguments turn on others hurried typographical errors, you've got even bigger problems than I first imagined. Retreat to that tactic implies an utterly desperate lack of serious intellect. Well, appears like you have answered hurriedly again, since my reply had nothing whatsoever to do with typographical errors. Maybe you'll appear like less of an idiot if you actually read what you are responding to. What that does imply for the imaginary problems you fancy me having will likely remain your secret. And what this kind of evasive tactics and nonsensical accusations imply for you in the category utterly desperate lack of serious intellect is pretty easy for everyone to see. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 1:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: That where to get is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. The online distribution of GPLed firmware by Verizon is accompanied by source found at http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Networking/Troubleshooting/QuestionsOne/124346.htm. Verizon also makes source available through the offer of a physical copy for no more than distribution costs ($10) listed on the same page. The manufacturers of the hardware also make source available at http://opensource.actiontec.com/, and offer physical copies for $10 as well. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: [...] That where to get is NOT Verizon's location and has nothing to do with Verison's location above, silly dak. Oh, and you twit can certainly point to the exact place in the GPL where http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-khlmann-liar.html The Peter Köhlmann liar So you admit that you have no such link or citation Figures. You are as dishonest as Snot Michael Glasser -- The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the stupidity of your action. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
RJack wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Erik Andersen's alleged (and fraudulent in fact) claim of ownership http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane In addition to the copyright notices, McFarlane registered copyright on the issues and the books. ... McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. GPL skeptics are so wrong, in so many ways. 37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright. (a) General. (1) This section prescribes conditions for the registration of copyright, and the application to be made for registration under sections 408 and 409 of title 17 of the United States Code, as amended by Pub. L. 94–553. (2) For the purposes of this section, the terms audiovisual work , compilation , copy , derivative work , device , fixation , literary work , motion picture , phonorecord , pictorial, graphic and sculptural works , process , sound recording , and their variant forms, have the meanings set forth in section 101 of title 17. The term author includes an employer or other person for whom a work is “made for hire” under section 101 of title 17. (3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either: (i) The author of a work; (ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. --- 1) Is Erik Anderson the author of release tarball BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? 3) Is Erik Anderson a person that has obtained ownership of all rights in release BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? Sincerely, RJack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents Moglen Talk
On 2/10/2010 3:53 PM, RJack wrote: 37 CFR § 202.3 Registration of copyright. (3) For the purposes of this section, a copyright claimant is either: (i) The author of a work; (ii) A person or organization that has obtained ownership of all rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. 1) Is Erik Anderson the author of release tarball BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? Yes: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane McFarlane’s registrations no more revealed an intent to claim copyright in Gaiman’s contributions, as distinct from McFarlane’s own contributions as compiler and illustrator, than the copyright notices did. The significance of registration is that it is a prerequisite to a suit to enforce a copyright. 3) Is Erik Anderson a person that has obtained ownership of all rights in release BusyBox, v.0.60.3.tar.bz2? No. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
