Ha. Ha. Someone nicknamed "codswallet" opined:
Busybox the plot thickens - is Ravicher = cornstarch?
Well Busybox [Bell Micro] finally responded. They claim that they were
negotiating with the SFLC, who gave them extensions on the response
deadline, and they have the draft proposals to prove it. And, moreover
they've been offering source for download (200+ megabytes) on the Hammer
site, since June 11.
Moreover they claim that they have no idea what is in the boxes, since
the firmware is installed in Taiwan by the vendor. They post the source
code they were given.
So it appears that
1) The SFLC violated several of the bar's ethical rules
2) May not have registered the copyright while getting a judgment
3) May have made material misrepresentations to the court.
4) Hammer is covered for the boxes under 109
"109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of
particular copy or phonorecord42
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any
person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of
the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of
that copy or phonorecord".
5) El Corton noticed that the GPL says:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: "
It doesn't say you may neither copy nor distribute, and it is
indisputable that you may copy without distributing. By symmetry, you
should be able to distribute without copying.. This implies any action
should be against the manufacturer or maybe with the commerce dept. to
block the import.
6) So if the SFLC has a case, it's for posting the object code for their
customers. This, however isn't distribution, but only copying as we've
seen in the recent RIAA cases. You'd have to say that the copies made by
customers were unlawful and they were infringing making Hammer a
contributing infringer. But the customers are copying without
distributing, so can they infringe?
7) The GPL2 isn't well written by modern standards, and this foolishness
is the result. Dubious lawyering by the SFLC won't help. It's past time
to switch to GPL3.
I predict the judge will be very unhappy. We'll see who he is unhappy
with. It's partly his own fault, which will make him even madder. It
usually does. He'll have to lift the judgment, or he'll get reamed on
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)