Hypothetical question...

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

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
rod at cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Johnson [mailto:arandir at meer.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 7:19 PM
> To: rod at cyberspaces.org; Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.;
> license-discuss at opensource.org
> 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/
>