Quote from: Levole11 on September 22, 2015, 01:22:37 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on September 22, 2015, 12:06:54 PM

Quote from: YAdaminer on September 22, 2015, 11:40:24 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 21, 2015, 11:32:24 PM

Quote from: traumschiff on September 21, 2015, 06:49:52 PM

Everything here was already over discussed in several threads already

OMG, it's the hand-waving 'old news is old' defense!

Are you Hillary Fucking Clinton's understudy or what?

The fact VanillaScam's main dev is a proven code thief is still extremely relevant. The importance of that revelation does not expire or diminish in some kind of media half-life equation.

What traumshiff said is all this is over discussed on more than few threads and not one shit what you, smooth and your alter ego accounts said hasn't been proven. Even gmaxwell was only fishing with his 'quiet words of warning' and that was after john-connor warned him and other BTC devs about problem and proposed solution... so, go prove that john-connor stole the code and don't take only 50 lines of code, check all the code on github. Check it and prove it. You know what percentage of code must be the same not similar that you can claim something is stolen. VNL code is different. If you think otherwise PROVE IT or GTFO together with your vicious XMR don't know how to code frends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

Quote

In U.S. copyright law, substantial similarity is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if infringement was limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work.
...
Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis. Among these are:

1. Uniqueness, intricacy, or complexity of the similar sections.
2. If the plaintiff's work contains an unexpected or idiosyncratic element that is repeated in the alleged infringing work.
3. The appearance of the same errors or mistakes in both works.
4. Fictitious entries placed by the plaintiff that appear in the defendant's work. For example, fake names or places are often inserted in factual works like maps or directories to serve as proof of copying in a later infringement case since their appearance in a defendant's work cannot be explained away by innocent causes.
5. Obvious or crude attempts to give the appearance of dissimilarity.

I think the bolded entry is particularly relevant in this case, based on the copied errors pointed out by rnicoll earlier in the thread.

As for how much needs to be copied in order for it to amount to copyright infringement, that seems a bit more complex:
http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/software_ip_legal_considerations.aspx

Quote

Substantial similarity between competing software works is the third element of the copyright infringement claim. In assessing whether a computer program has been infringed, the Fifth Circuit has adopted the abstraction-filtration method proposed by the Tenth Circuit in Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries.
...
The goal of the analysis should be to determine whether any copied elements constitute matter that is significant in the plaintiff's program. This is a qualitative, rather than quantitative analysis, the outcome of which will depend heavily on the unique facts of each case.

It can certainly be far less than 50% to qualify as copyright infringement.
http://www.alankorn.com/article-copyright-infringe.html

Quote

One of the more famous U.S music infringement cases involved ex-Beatle George Harrison, who was found by a jury to have unconsciously copied the Shirelles composition Hes So Fine in his 1971 hit My Sweet Lord. Although George Harrisons hit was found to be strikingly similar to the Shirelles song, it is even possible to infringe another song if only just a few notes are borrowed. Because the most memorable part of a song may be quite brief, infringement of a musical composition may be found even where only a small portion of a song was copied.

So, why doesn't anybody from xmr look through the whole code on github, to verify if it can be named as 'stolen', rather than the standard xmr troll games..This is just a tiny part of the tens of thousands lines of code in there.. VNL is superior to xmr, those few lines of code you guys keep reposting isn't changing that..

Here's an easier solution: john-connor adds the correct copyright attribution to his code.