[Development] [Increasingly OT] Re: Qt 4.8.6 Release Plans
oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com
Mon Nov 4 19:46:57 CET 2013
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 07:11:18PM +0100, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> On Monday 04 November 2013 16:52:36 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > also, no sane judge would issue an injunction because of a three-liner,
> > so the risk of noteworthy disruption is practically zero.
> Enter Oracle vs. Android: if memory serves correctly, the final discussion was
> about nine lines of code among several million lines.
now, that's the catch: they started off with millions of lines, which
defines the amount in dispute, which defines the cost of the litigation.
there is simply no plausible way how somebody could make a ruinous case
over "stealing" a few obvious bugfixes.
show me *one* case to the contrary.
> > we are talking about some oss guy who'd most probably be quite happy
> > to see his patches taken in (how about asking?),
> Absofragginlutely correct! How about asking him to submit it to
while i don't know this particular case, you must realize that we are
losing some potentially worthwhile contributions because people cannot
be arsed to push them to us. also, sometimes it's just so much more
efficient to simply take a patch and polish it yourself instead of
handholding a total noob who'll never make a second contribution anyway.
in that light i find it quite important to be able to judge the
threshold of copyright relevance ourselves.
More information about the Development