|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500 |
"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Ekjol.24698$uG1.18298@newsfe16.iad...
I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it from the original source, i.e. Busybox.org or whatever. No one is going to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original source.On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with the notion as a concept. However, in the case of BusyBox, such hypothetical benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders. There was no modification that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any user. In the JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be true.You're begging the question. Your "conclusion" is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |