Clarification on a few points

Clarification on a few points

Off the top of my head:

You're not fully apprehending the context of Judge Walker's guidelines. Altai's re-implementation of CA's software in a different language was non-literal copying. On the other hand, all versions of Busybox later than mine have been directly derivative. They start with the entire body of source code that I created and the overall design, and then later versions have incremental changes. So, you could probably remove every exact line that I wrote, and I would still have an excellent case that the result remained a derivative work and that I have an actionable interest in the work.

You misuse 17.102(b) to say that certain code is not my work because you believe it's functional and thus not copyrightable.

You don't consider that I have a compilation copyright as well.

You think I will have no actionable interest in toybox, or whatever you call it, after your extensive involvement in Busybox. I could assert such an interest if provoked.

I could probably enlarge this list if I took the time. But that would be engaging with you, which isn't desirable or necessary.

Note: you can avoid this step in the future by logging into your LWN account.