6 cans a day help keep you strong...

LRP had the wireless drivers, a menu interface for routing configuration and was also embed-able, running off a read only boot medium.
The OP is asking for these specific things, and LRP had it out of the box, though I'd have to check exactly when the first wireless drivers made it in.

So LRP it was an existing distributed 'product', not a one-off box someone made. The former gives grounds to invalidate the patent.

Dave

Certainly not the very first ever made, but likely the first mainsteam implementation that was available.

I had a 2U 386SX 16Mhz Workstation with full length ISA 900MHz WaveLAN card, that ran LRP off 3.5" 1.44MB.
Host name was 'Brain-Damage'. Some of the first LRP development was done on that back in 1997.

The boys over in Latvia that went on to form RouterBoard were doing much more then me with wireless but I'm not sure if it was with Linux at the time.

Dave

When do we get to see the Judge's essay?

Doesn't he know that you can't be charged with resisting arrest as a sole charge? It must be based on an otherwise lawful arrest? And that if this was not a lawful arrest, you have a right to resist it?

Freeze Gopher!

So you could recognize the injustice of the situation, and in your heart knew it was wrong to convict, but you were perfectly willing to be a part of it because the whimsical authority of the CA government is simply paramount to any sort of humanity.

Excellent job Fuck-Wad!

Next time instead of "following the law", try and do what is right.

Unconstitutional...

In bulk reply:

1) There are two things here: Copyright and License. Bruce created a work. He holds copyright. He published that worked under a license. That license is the GPL. I had privilege to use, modify, and redistribute that work according to the license. The license requires that I respect Bruce's copyright and redistribute derivatives under that same license. I own copyright to the parts I have authored. This goes so forth and so on for each person. IMO the original author never loses copyright claim. Without question the original author remains the primary license grantor.

2) Violating the GPL means violating the terms of the license. According to the GPL if you violate these terms, you loose your privilege the work completely .

3) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the GPL.

4) Before meaninglessly rambling actually read the courts documents. Anderson claims complete copyright here.

5) I would argue that from my knowledge Anderson did not hold the copyright for many of the code contributions he made into busybox (his employer did) and further more as Anderson is not respecting the terms of the original copyright and license term of the original author (Bruce) and authors before him (Me) he is in violation of Section 1 GPLv2, and has lost his his privileges to the software according to Section 4 GPLv2. In this case Anderson lacks standing to bring suit and he himself is open to an action.

6) One must wonder why the SFLC is working with Anderson when they have been aware that both Bruce and myself have more senior claims to the original work without the 'issues' Anderson has. As Bruce has written we've basically been snubbed by them.

7) I feel I speak for Bruce here in saying the most important issue for us is to have our interests be respected and to be a party to any terms of how the license is enforced. I would be content if it was ultimately left to Bruce because he is original author and respect that. I personally never made a penny from BusyBox unlike Anderson who's full time job paid him to work on BusyBox (and other work I created). When I start to read about 'undisclosed settlement amounts' and considering the full picture, it leaves a very bad taste not knowing exactly what is taking place here. I'm not allowed to know. Bruce is not allowed to know. That's not acceptable.

Anyone who has contributed to a piece of GPL software, reserves their copyright, and does not violate the GPL license has rights to defend their own copyright in the work. The issue you may be missing is this is not clearly the situation with Anderson for several reasons.

I am the one that handed BusyBox over to Anderson after maintaining it for 2 years.

I believe I worked with Busybox longer then Bruce did and during my time I reorganized the code, but still consider Bruce the primary root Copyright holder and license grantor. Anderson is claiming complete Copyright and that is simply an impossibility. As far as I am concerned, this claim is a GPL violation in and of itself.

Even if every line of code Bruce or myself wrote were replaced, it was done so on his and subsequently my license terms which are the GPL. My privileges and Anderson's privileges (if any ?) to alter and redistribute Bruce's work are based on those license terms derived from Bruce's initial publication and you can not simply 'code them away' unless you start from scratch.