On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:08:12 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The fact that the code is available does not make it likely that you
copied it! You can't just publish code and then claim any similar code
*must* be yours because it's impossible for someone not to look at your
code. People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on
proof.
Copyright infringement is a civil, not criminal, case, and so a decision
is based on a "preponderance" of evidence rather than proof "beyond a
reasonable doubt".
In these cases yes, but there are criminal copyright infringement cases.
I didn't exactly mean beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think the point of
not ever looking at or touching another's source is equivalent to proof of
the contrary, no? I think they at least have to prove that you accessed
the code :) I don't think "because the source is available online" is
evidence at all, that was my point. Otherwise, you'd have to cancel your
internet service just to be safe...
It's also possible that someone printed out all the code of a competitor's
compiler and executed drive-by leafleting of the code at your house, and
you accidentally picked up some code snippits out of curiosity, but we
can't convict on the possibility that it could have happened. I would
think they'd have to show that the timelines match up, there's lack of
evidence that you developed it internally, etc. Just the fact that it
*could be* downloaded isn't proof.
-Steve
