Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[amicus_curious]

"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Ekjol.24698$uG1.18298@newsfe16.iad...
> 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.
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.