|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
What if you included in your 15 million line poem, a poem by
someone else which was free for anyone to use as they
wanted, and they had quoted nine lines which they'd written
in an earlier poem, but that earlier poem wasn't owned by
them, despite their having written it, and you hadn't
realised there was some quoted material. Then would you
still feel the same way? Cos that's what we are talking
about. And the 9 lines are not very original; other people
have written things that are amazingly similar. And 2 of
them are spaces. And one is a bracket.
Yep, I guess you would have infringed, but how could it not
be considered to be minimal?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
Judge Alsup has defined various "scopes" for different
aspects of the copyright infringement claims. He has to
make a call about what it is relative to which "virtually
identical" code in the rangeCheck() would be considered de
minimus.
I suspect, with parent poster, that Judge Alsup viewed this
particular question in the context of the whole routine, so
that it amounted to 100% copying. Some other contexts that
might have been used (all of the Array class, all of the
java.util package, all of Java class library) make less
sense in terms of the testimony Joshua Bloch gave, namely
that he intentionally duplicated the form and function of a
routine he knew (because he wrote it) already existed in the
Array class. The intent was to use it temporarily so that
on donation of the timsort code, replacement with the
existing rangeCheck() routine was not going to change
anything.
This doesn't mean that there are not other defenses which
can be used, and specifically fair use might well require a
different scope for considering "amount" of copying. If I
used one poem (or one source code routine) out of many for
an educational (rather than a plagiarizing) purpose, the
appropriate scope might be the entirety of a book (or a
class) as representative of that material.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- how annoying. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
