David Kastrup wrote:
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes:

There is nothing to "get". If the court finds that it cannot act because defendants have infringed upon a non-registered version, the plaintiffs can simply register that version and refile the claim. We know this from the SimplexGrinnell court decision.

I should think that it is sufficient if enough protected material from the registered version can be found in the distribution, whether
 or not there is an exact version match.

Otherwise one could simply modify a few lines, and lo-and-behold, the
 resulting version is no longer registered.  That's silly.

Determining the exact original version (rather than sufficient amounts of protected material) would only be interesting if different versions have been licensed under different conditions and/or to different people.

For example, if I licensed version 1.8 to somebody and find that he is distributing code derived from an older version 1.6 containing portions of code that has since then be removed (for whatever reason).

In such cases, determining the exact version makes a difference.

But in the case where registered and contentious version have been made available to the same people under the same conditions, exact version matching appears pointless. Sufficient amounts of matching code should do the trick.

Pop another beer DAK, then go read Groklaw or something requiring fewer
cognitive skills than this group. Post a nasty remark about Terekhov to
Pammy. That's what Alan does. She'll love you sucking up to her. She
rewards her faithful sycophants you know.

gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to