|
|
|
| Authored by: TerryC on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
So automatic insertion of copyright headers was virtually the
norm at the time
Really? I've worked for my current company
since 1984 and we always put copyright headers in every file we
produced. We would have failed QA if we didn't.
---
Just think; if Microsoft added 'You hereby grant us a license
to print money' to their EULA, it wouldn't change its meaning a bit.
Terry [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Parent mentions using a script/program to automatically
insert copyright headers on ALL files.
Don't forget, all mention of Doug Lea was removed.
Even if a script/program added headers, that does NOT
explain the removal of all mention of Doug Lea.
And if you claim a script/program did the removal,
then the script/program needed to have been written
to DO such removal. It doesn't just happen by accident.
No matter how you slice it, or try to justify it,
Sun 'filed off the serial numbers' and claimed it
wholly as their own.
Then Zeidman grudgingly admits both Sun and Google
may both have gotten from a third source, but still
ignores that Sun took Doug Lea's name off from the files.
This seems to me to be a misrepresentation. If you
can't sue over the contents of a file, because they
are in the public domain, and anyone else could legally
use it, then putting your own copyright notice on file
and obscuring the actual source is just not right.
It also calls into question if there might be other
files similarly handled with claims of copyright that
might not actually stand up to scrutiny in the long run.
These files were deliberately misrepresented by Sun.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01855.htm
Suggests there may actually be some criminal penalties
if this was done with fraudulent intent.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
