Reply to post: Re: *Whose* code? @ David Dawson

Ex-Goldman Sachs programmer found guilty of code theft … again


Re: *Whose* code? @ David Dawson

>>"irrelevant - the only definition worth considering is that in law,"

Well no, it isn't. Legal terminology is a specialized sub-set of language. We are not confined to only use definitions given by a particular country's legal system. The OP didn't say that they had been charged with "theft" in court, they called the action of taking something you didn't have a right to, to be theft. Which is in accord with the way pretty much everyone uses it.

I mean you can declare it "irrelevant" how most people use a word and insist that only legal definitions of a particular country is allowed, but you have no such authority to set those definitions above everyone else. When someone says the charge in court was "Theft" you can leap in and say it was technically "contract violation" or whatever, but that's not what anyone did.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019