BT Home Hub: Continued violation

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> As to whether the signature is part of the executable or not, if it
> can be shown that it was separated just as a means to try to escape
> the conditions of the license, a judge might very well make things
> simple and regard them as a single work, rather than having to split
> hairs to determine whether the signature itself is software.

The signature is an authentication item for a particular executable. There's no 
intent to "escape the conditions of the license" here. It is a perfectly 
acceptable custom in software to create signatures for particular executables 
(or source code tarballs). I have never seen anyone argue that such signature 
should be regarded as part of the executable or tarball they apply to.

I guess the rest of our argument is in the parallel thread.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
               Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/