[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:55:40 -0500

"Thufir Hawat" <> wrote in message news:fnBol.22967$aZ3.22930@newsfe01.iad...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

"Thufir Hawat" <> wrote in message
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:

The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source
(and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to
do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law

No shit, Dick Tracy.  I simply say that is silly.

And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution?  At a
minimum, sounds like plagiarism.

Only if you don't know the meaning of the term.

How can not attributing source *which you downloaded*, and then choose to
distribute in binary *not*, at least ethical, require attribution?

I don't understand what you are posting here. Are you missing something that ties non-attribution to plagiarism?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]