Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

have/having

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
donaldr3 2014-03-21 16:32:55 -04:00
parent 7ce3980bd6
commit fd3be34dc4
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -1319,7 +1319,7 @@ originality to merit copyright protection.
Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely
filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of
source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example, source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example,
constant s, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to constants, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to
perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although
common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of
copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the
@ -1412,7 +1412,7 @@ program, Oscar. About 30\% of Oscar was literally the same code as
that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those
portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new
version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without
have any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the having any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the
plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no
literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that
question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test. question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.