I think you agree that the thesis has no bearing on the actions that Dependabot recommends.
Worked Dependabot example https://github.com/jbehave/jbehave-tutorial/pull/19/files (I consumed this one for the JBehave team). ^ That was not copyrightable. It is not *original expression*, if it was and Dependabot beat me to an upgrade, and did not also grant me a copyright for the same, I would be legally prevented from effecting the same upgrade be retyping the same two-character change. Patch upgrades like this are in the "obvious" and "could not be done any other way" that are decades old as considered dilemmas and well and truly answered in law. The alternative would be skip 1.4.6 as an upgrade and wait for 1.4.7 - hoping to beat dependabot to the punch?? On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 4:19 PM Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > The conclusion of the paper itself is 3 pages (no paragraphs, so it > might be written by an AI ;-). > > - Dutch (and international) copyright law don't require a copyright > holder to be human > - so the work itself needs to be evaluated, two criteria that factor > into this; requirement of reflecting an original expression and the > carrying of a personal imprint > - original expression is feasible for AIs (according to author) > > The author lost me at the reasoning for "personal imprint". > > Martijn > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:18 AM Paul Hammant <p...@hammant.org> wrote: > > > > Summary ? > > > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
