|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
As the OP, I was trying to emphasis the fact that as Dr Reinhold had just
assumed that sloppy SUN engineers had not added copyright notices and not
considered other possibilities was remiss of him, especially as there is
recorded litigation which includes missing copyright notices:
The USL vs BSD case shows that it is not a valid assumption as the copyright
notices were missing and the reason was not that AT&T engineers had been
sloppy in not putting them in (but that engineers had actually in fact been
rather naughty in removing proper copyright notices).
Note: I'm not suggesting that SUN engineers had been removing proper copyright
notices, just that there is a litigation recorded incident of an alternative
reason.
Mind you, any reference by Google to this in cross examining Dr Reinhold would
more than likely have raised a large OBJECTION from Oracle as it has the
implication that possibly the stuff with missing copyrights might well have been
misappropriated by Sun, and thus now Oracle - USL accusing BSD of copyright
infringement when they themselves were extremely guilty would get matched fairly
quickly to Oracle accusing Google of copyright infringement of stuff they copied
illegally in the first place...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
