Re: The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 6:44 PM, RJack wrote:
> > The only GPL'd code at issue is "BusyBox, v.0.60.3" registered
>
> No, that's incorrect. In order to copy and distribute a GPLed version
>  of BusyBox, the source code for the exact version being distributed 
> must be made properly available according to the terms of the GPL. 
> The version you mention is one registered by Erik Andersen, but it is
>  not the version being distributed by the defendants.

*Allegedly* distributed Hyman. *Allegedly." Where's the beef?

> It is possible, should the defendants not settle, that they will 
> assert that registration of a different version prevents suit on the 
> version they are distributing, and then the court would decide that 
> matter. The plaintiffs can register other versions and refile the 
> suit, should that be necessary.

The plaintiff(s) don't own *any* version of Busybox "a single computer
program". One of the plaintiff(s) owns no copyrights at all. The
plaintiff Erik Andersen will never successfully get *any* version of
Busybox registered since he doesn't own *any8 version.

Busybox is a snarled, tangled combination of patches and derivative
source modules that defies categorization. No one will *ever*
successfully register "Busybox a single computer program" because the
original authorship of the code is impossible to untangle. More than
fifty authors have contributed patches to Busybox over the course of
ten years -- that's literally millions of bifurcations in a supposed
derivative work.

You can spin but you can't win.

Sincerely,
RJack :)