On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information: > > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. > > That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then > > either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to > > start with. > > What you both seem to be arguing here is a question of fact, not of law. > > The question that is asked is: > > Was the work copied or not? Well, sort of. Anthony is arguing that it was copied. I am arguing that *if* it was not copied, there has been no copyright violation. Anthony then repeats "No, it was copied". I'm not sure what he thinks this accomplishes. I have an endless supply of hypothetical scenarios where it was not copied, regardless of how many he "changes". Any one of them demonstrates how the license is incompatible with the GPL. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpJYo2Ek58WF.pgp
Description: PGP signature