> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:33:26 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> 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 > > Do you think a few more verdicts like that will influence small FLOSS > projects? In that they will not apply proposed fixes "faster, faster, > faster", You complained no one here was a lawyer and any residual changes would be deemed not qualifying under copyright law. I posted a reference to a very recent judgement where a very good lawyer tried to argue the same for nine very simple code lines over a code corpus that dwarfs audacious (not qualifying seems to be written de minimis in american lawyer speek) and a very good judge refused the argument. If that's not good enough for you as authoritative reference I don't know what could be. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
