On 9/21/10 5:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on
proof.
Okay, I suppose I was not as clear about my point as I hoped I would be:
This is exactly what I wanted to say – if you want to sue somebody for
copying your code, it has to be proven that they took your code, not
just possible. But I don't see how just reading other people's code
would affect that – either you copied it, or you didn't.
My point about the source being freely available on the internet was
just to illustrate that claiming »But, your honor, I didn't even read
that other piece of code« does not seem like a very strong defense to me
*if the court has already been convinced that you copied other code*,
e.g. by an expert's opinion.
I should also add that I am no lawyer, and I am generally only very
modestly experienced in legal issues, so please bear with me if my
questions don't make much sense – I just want to understand the reason
why Walter is so exceptionally afraid of looking at other projects.
To me, it seems a bit as if a researcher refused to keep himself
informed about scientific progress in the field he is working on, just
because he could be accused of stealing from other people (yes, that's a
weak analogy, I know).
Oh, and I am perfectly aware of the fact that there is no common
European jurisdiction in these matters, but to the best of my knowledge,
the laws regarding intellectual property are quite similar from a
high-level point of view in many European countries – and probably in
large contrast with US copyright laws, which is what I intended to hint at.
