On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Nor is "Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe'",
> > but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
> > things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under
> > the terms of the GPL.
> This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless
> you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright
> behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them)
"You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right."
Nice to see we're working towards consensus.
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access
to the original work.
Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away
with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgpvGeZej7kgr.pgp
Description: PGP signature