> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:52:19 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:45:15PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people >> [*], >> > which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which >> other >> > people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have >> not >> > been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright. >> >> Which is a dangerous position to take. Don't say things like that. > > I'd love to take advice from you, but with your overly brief comments > you're unconvincing. I don't think copyright law is as simple as to cover > it with one-line mails. Please consider that in the Oracle vs Google case, Oracle ended up with 9-line copying (plus a few test files), and the judge decided that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *law* copyright infringement had occurred for those 9 lines. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120510205659643#1119 That's what a very smart judge decided in a huge trial with some of the countries top lawyers involved. I don't have any clear idea what is not substantial enough to qualify for copyright, but this very simple code did https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940683 -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
