4 ms·
That's more of a trademark issue, and would require a reasonable consumer to be likely to be deceived. Which they're not.
by azernik 5y ago
That's more of a trademark issue, and would require a reasonable consumer to be likely to be deceived. Which they're not.
- junon 5y agoNo, it's not a trademark issue. They copied the work verbatim (including code, which is not covered by trademark law, but by copyright law), modified it, and then put the original copyright notice in the legalese. This is copyright infringement. And consumers are clearly deceived - hence why my original comment asking about it was written and has several upvotes.
- azernik 5y agoThe direct copyright is covered by the satire exceptions. If you want to argue that copying the legalese is different, it's going to be on those confusion grounds, which IIUC aren't a copyright concern.