Well, that was not my point precisely. My point was that the elements of a
copyright infringement claim include the requirement that the plaintiff
prove that his source code was copied by the defendant, and that proving
this element is far easier under an open source project than a closed-source
project.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 7:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Hypothetical question...
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
>
> > In other words, the irony of open source is that it is easier to prove
> > copyright infringement than it would be if the software were
> proprietary or
> > closed-source.
>
> In my particular case, I should have no problems. However, your irony is
> interesting. Releasing source code under a no-modify license may
> be better IP
> protection than keeping it 100% closed.
>
> --
> Arandir...
> _____________________________
> http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
>
