> ...the legal distinction between editing author and co-author seems very dangerous. It seems entirely reasonable to me. A pure reviewer (as opposed to a code

> ...the legal distinction between editing author and co-author seems very dangerous. It seems entirely reasonable to me. A pure reviewer (as opposed to a code contributor) has no copyright claim to the work because the reviewer didn't write it. The court wants to see evidence that the plaintiff does indeed have a copyright claim over the works he claimed he does. > This case seems to imply that we should abandon this practice... I don't think so. It simply demonstrates that one cannot bring a claim for copyleft license violation without actually having a copyright interest in the work, which is something we already knew.