The great BusyBox fraud continues

[RJack]

The SFLC's PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
DEFENDANT WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL ELECTRONICS,
LLC states:

"4 The version of BusyBox distributed by Westinghouse is believed to be
version v0.60.2. D. Kuhn ¶ 10; SMF ¶ 14. While Mr. Andersen owns
copyright in portions of that version of BusyBox as well, the copyright
registration here was for the next subsequent version of BusyBox,
v0.60.3. D. Andersen ¶ 4; SMF ¶ 4. However, since Mr. Andersen “is the
owner of the copyright of both the derivative and preexisting work, the
registration certificate relating to the derivative work in this
circumstance will suffice to permit it to maintain an action for
infringement based on defendants' infringement of the preexisting work.”
Streetwise Maps, Inc. v. Vandam, Inc., 159 F.3D 739, 747 (2d Cir. 1998).
Thus, the registration for v0.60.3 constitutes registration for v0.60.2
as well."

The official source for v0.60.2 is here:

http://www.busybox.net/downloads/legacy/busybox-0.60.2.tar.gz

A grep of the source tree for v0.60.2 reflects Erik Andersen's
name appears in the following files:

autodocifier.pl
bootfloppy.txt
BusyBox.html
BusyBox.html
BusyBox.txt
depmod.pl
index.html
oldnews.html

The compiled BusyBox binary v0.60.2 that Andersen claims that Western
Digital is distributing is allegedly in a ramdisk kernel image according
to his sworn witness D. Kuhn.

Andersen's contribution to v0.60.2 consists of name mention in four html
scripts, two text files and two perl scripts.

NONE OF THE FILES MENTIONING ERIK ANDERSEN IN THE SOURCE TREE FOR
v0.60.2 ARE COMPILED INTO THE CLAIMED BINARY VERSION OF BUSYBOX THAT IS
ALLEGEDLY DISTRIBUTED BY WESTERN DIGITAL.

His "contribution" to v0.60.2 consists of name mention in four html
scripts, two text files and two perl scripts.

Erik Andersen continues to claim ownership of BusyBox v0.60.2 although
he has contributed no executable code to the compiled BusyBox binary at
all -- it doesn't get any more dishonest than this. It would be a
toss-up to decide who is the bigger liar -- The Sofware Freedom
Conservancy INC or SCO Inc.

If Western Digital's attorneys allow this rank, fraudulent request for
default judgment to proceed, they should be restricted to practicing law
in Siberia.

Sincerely,
RJack :)