But the BGB is not derived from the NA is it? It's derived from the Nestle 1904 which is clearly now in the public domain. I don't understand how taking a public domain text, and amending it (algorithmically or by hand) based on published decisions (facts) found in copyright works would be problematic?The high similarity between the BGB and the NA is because the BGB is a work derived from the NA, more precisely, when it agrees with the SBLGNT, replacing the text of Nestle 1904.
I wouldn't assume that the reason BGB has not been sued is because it is not well known. How do you know the reason is not simply that it might set a legal precedent against the Bible Societies under U.S. Law?