On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 22:26, Manhong Dai <da...@umich.edu> wrote: > > Further, as Daniel already pointed out, this case is just about API. >
I did no such thing, I merely pointed out that one of their arguments is that the copy was not substantial in volume, and it was a lot more than three lines for a patch; actually, they specifically did not rule on the API copyrightability issue.
