Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: glen herrmannsfeldt Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: "Borrowing" code Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <7l2rj71n2qk6kqf27dpv59tl7qi5tfmc42@4ax.com> <5368336.186.1329470502072.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbeo1> <21955541.159.1329508308005.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgq3> <26067624.0.1329550046782.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcpl10> NNTP-Posting-Host: H0vc4U5LIRkRHNPyGCs2dA.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: tin/1.9.6-20100522 ("Lochruan") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.32-5-amd64 (x86_64)) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:12167 Arved Sandstrom wrote: (snip) > Lew, you're not that dense. You know damned well that copyright > infringement doesn't require identical copying. Look up "substantial > similarity". (snip) > We know what the law says. You do, I do, and most other thinking people > do. You don't need to consult a lawyer for the basics here. > If such a situation were to go legal, let's assume that for each of the > N apparently similar code snippets that we have N known, undisputed > authors. One of them is the plaintiff, and has to prove first the > infringement and then that damages occurred as a result, against one or > more of the other N-1 parties. Sounds amazingly like the SCO vs. (N-1 parties) regarding unix code copyright. (See my previous post or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi .) (snip of more good points in the discussion) -- glen