|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
gfim points out that
'They still don't seem to acknowledge that all of the Doug Lea authored files
contain the string "released to the public domain" in the header!'
Naturally. I noted well where they said something like
"Given that we could not find evidence of any third party at that time, we
felt it was safe to conclude that one file was copied from the other."
Clearly, either they did not try very hard, or they are not that capable.
People at Groklaw promptly found evidence that Doug Lea's work which he
put in the public domain preceeded Sun's copyright on those files.
The public domain status seemed to put no limit on what could be done
with the file. So what if two parties each take the same public domain file,
both put their copyright notices on it, and then one sues the other
for same contents? Clearly it would be wrong for the plaintiff to win,
since the other party has just as much right to the file contents.
So that suggests to me that there should be something wrong with trying
to assert copyright on something that has been put in the public
domain, unless one has created a derivative work, and then only the
altered or new portions should be eligible for such protection.
So, is there any evidence that Sun altered or added new portions to
the original work? Surely if there were, I would have expected
Zeidman to tell us all about it, in support for Suns copyright.
In any case, I've found it distasteful for Sun to have removed all mention
of the source of the files, and to baldly claim them as their own without
any reservation whatsoever. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
