On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:55:37 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
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...
Right, and the source code may even reside on your disk (sheesh, I've
got terabytes of stuff on disks, there may very well be source code to
something on that!). Access is not proof that one looked at it.
It comes down to one's credibility, coupled with absence of other
evidence of copying (like matching source text).
One other way to ensure you have evidence to the contrary is to use source
control. Not only is it good for productivity and disaster recovery, but
it shows perfect snapshots of how you developed the code, and the timeline
of development. So even if your code *does* end up looking similar, you
can show how you independently came up with the similar code.
-Steve
