RSH identity

From: david (whatever_at_davidnicol.com)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 13:02:37 PST

• Next message: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu: "Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -2.0"
• Previous message: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• In reply to: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

on the other hand, I am fairly certain that those postings
would be fall within definitions of "identical" applicable
to copyright law.

I don't think "later drafts of the same work" are widely
considered to be "non-identical derivative works" although
that is what they become when one uses RSH's "identical"

Do we have any IP lawyers on the list any more?


> Richard S. Holmes wrote:
> 
>>To call two postings
>>identical when one has been edited for grammar, word choice, and
>>punctuation over-strains the word "identical".
> 

• Next message: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu: "Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -2.0"
• Previous message: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• In reply to: david: "Re: anecdote 221:e (1 of 2) INVALID, +1.0"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST