On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:26 AM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, to allow the SSO of any, and let's emphasize **any** computer > program, to be stolen, and let's use the word stolen, that would be a > dramatic shift. Yes/no? > > If there's no way to enforce SSO under copyright, then any SSO can be > **stolen** -- which is the word being used by the judges in this case. the > appeals court chose to write about the wider implications, so I'm adopting > the language of first judge, and the appeals court, to use **any** and > **stolen**. > Here is where the crux of whatever point you are trying to make falls apart. SSO != the API. The API is *PART* of SSO, but it is not, by itself, the entirety of SSO. For example, I may have a copyright on a book with 10 chapters, with names A thru J. If someone else makes a boot with the same chapter names, did they step on my copyright? Perhaps. Did they steal my book? Obviously not. SSO is more then just the API. Abstraction Filtration Comparison tests have been used in trying to identify if something had indeed been stolen. Your narrowly looking at one aspect. You're also incorrectly making the possibly blatant copy of a source file mean the same thing as reimplementing an API. They are DIFFERENT. -- -- Thomas
