|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
Even if they subcontracted it out.
It's possibly mitigating factor, but the copyright phase is
over (for now) anyway.
Google may have had a claim against Noser if they wanted to
get them on breach of contract (which specifically forbade
this apparently), but even if they did, it may be too late
now.
I doubt they'd want to sue someone from the OHA anyway -
sends the wrong message. Probably a quiet chat and a "don't
do it again"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: al_dunsmuir on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
Google has stated that Noser violated their contract with Google by creating
these test files in this manner.
Google remedied the problem by deleting the files from their CVS immediately
after notification. CVS history does show the obsoleted files, and the
date/time when deletion occurred.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
| I wonder why Noser wasn't added to the case as a second defendant. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
No, Noser was a subcontractor to Google. Google was responsible to make sure
Noser didn't include anything that was copyrighted by someone else. They did a
work for hire for Google.
Not that Noser isn't also responsible.
I know, for sure, they will never do any contract work for my company, nor for
any company I do contracting with on any project I am involved in.
But that is always a risk in any contracting. The limits of control and
oversight. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
