Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gnrq16$77q$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > I think that you are misreading the situations.  Certainly a copyright
> > owner who is selling access to his work is not interested in giving it
> > away.  That makes sense.  But the BusyBox authors are totally willing
> > to give their work away and have been doing so for years.  The only
> > thing that they are hammering their users in regard to is for not
> > publishing the acknowledgement and code itself on the user's own
> > site....
>
> No, they are not giving it away. They are giving permission to others to
> use their work only so long as the others abide by their conditions. As
> soon as the other person violates these condition, the permission is
> withdrawn. This is not the same as "giving it away".  A better term is
> "licensing'.
Nonsense, they are giving it away as in there is no charge and there is no 
funding of the author by the users.  A requirement to publish some source 
prior to being allowed to pass the free code on to others is akin to making 
the user swing a dead cat over his head and bow to Mecca before doing the 
same.  Such an action achieves the same level of benefit to others.

> The fourth sentence I quoted above is better rewritten thus:
>
>  But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to license their work and
>  have been doing so for years.

They give it away.