On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:19:07 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>> In article <yIidneUAEomYssHVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> rjack <robjack@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > It is most plausible that the defendants simply said to the SFLC,
>> > "Dismiss or we will file a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss" and collect our
>> > attorney fees and costs. Even an incompetent defense attorney would
>> > know that the SFLC pleadings are defective on their face due to lack
>> > of Copyright Office registration of the allegedly infringed works.
>> > The lack of a public settlement stipulation by both parties
>> > reinforces this scenario.
>>
>> Yet the source then appeared, which is what SFLC wanted.
>
> Verizon offers Busybox object code for downloading on its own web site.
>
> http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
>
> Don't you think that this means Verizon must provide access to the
> corresponding Busybox source code apart from Actiontec? What happens if
> Actiontec goes out of business tomorrow?
>
The source should still be available.
--
Rick
