Alan Cox wrote: >> No. Holders of Linux copyrights would have to prove that the >> proprietary code is derived from the kernel. They have the burden of >> proof, and defence needs merely show that their arguments are wrong. >> > > Wrong again. In civil law in the USA and most of europe the test is > "balance of probability". >
No, I'm right. The word "proof" is appropriate in context. (I write in plain English, not Legalese.) I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean "mathematically certain." Anybody who pretends that proof in court means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
