3 ms·

Are you a lawyer? Because other lawyers have told me otherwise. Would you happen to know of cases where your interpretation has been upheld?

• jahewson 11y ago
  Of course I can read something and not copy it. I can read a book and not copy it. I can listen to a song and not copy it. I can look at art and not copy it. And I can read source code and not copy it. It's not surprising that your lawyer implied otherwise, as its "best practice" to guard against every feasible risk, no matter how unlikely. Understand that your lawyer is protecting you against a hyper-zealous misinterpretation of the law, not the actual law.
  • ehaughee 11y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the original point here is not whether someone read the code and then contributed, but whether their contribution might (inadvertently or otherwise) contain Matlab intellectual property because they have been exposed to it. It seems a reasonable safeguard to prohibit those who have seen the source code from potentially contributing in a troublesome manner.
    • jahewson 11y ago
      You're quite right about exposure to code: it's prudent to be hyper-cautious. But the original point of contention was the suggestion that it's legally required to be this cautious, that people simply don't have the right to read something and then write something similar which isn't a copy - and that is false.
  • theseoafs 11y ago
    Do you have any legal expertise whatsoever, or any basis for giving people legal advice?