Re: SFLC stipulated dismissal of Comtrend without any settlement

[David Kastrup]

RJack <user@example.net> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 4/10/2010 9:32 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> "Not Found The requested document was not found on this server.
>>
>> It is also the case that <http://www.comtrend.com/na/contact.htm>
>> says "Comtrend Corporation North America provides downloads by
>> request only." so it may be that in order to get the GPL-compliant
>> sources you must register and ask for it.
>
> So it may be that you're just moooooooooooooooooooooving the goalposts
> again.

The goalpost has always been that people getting binaries derived from
GPL-licensed sources are provided with access to the _corresponding_
source code, licensed under the GPL at no additional charge, and are
given notice about the licensing.  What imaginary goalposts you fancy
moving around in that confused brain of yours is not relevant.

> It's put up or shut up time Hyman. So where's the link to "BusyBox
> v. 0.60.3" which the SFLC claims causes the infringement problems?

The SFLC claimed nothing of that sort.  The infringement problem is
caused by significant amounts of code registered with the copyright
office via BusyBox version 0.60.3.  But that does not mean that the
infringing version itself is identical to 0.60.3, or actually to any
unmodified and/or released BusyBox version.  The licensing conditions
call for making the source code corresponding to the delivered binary
version available, not anything else.

That's been the state of affairs from the start.  That you keep getting
confused in different manners does not "move the goalposts".

-- 
David Kastrup