🚀 go-pugleaf

I've read the Cox book.  I've double clicked on a NeXT computer.
I've printed the class interface files on the NeXT. I noticed that
all the copyright notices say "NeXT, Inc", and not "Stepstone, Inc".

I've written an Objective-C translator (much like that in the Cox
book). I want to distribute public-domain classes to provide a
reason to use my translator (very useless without them).  I'd like
the classes to be compatible with those people are already using.

Question:  Are there differences in the base classes between those
 NeXT ships and Stepstone ships? Classes like:  Object, List, Storeable,
 Hashable.  I figured out the windowing classes are different
 (Stepstone has Menu subclass of List).

Also:  Would it be legal to read doc files (NeXT or Stepstone) and
 then distribute my version of their libraries as part of my
 Objective-C like translator?  If I sold them, would I have to
 pay royalties, even though I haven't entered into licensing 
 agreements with either party?  (Is there a comp.legal-issues group :-)


#if LEGAL_ISSUES
	I see "reproducing software based on what you see in a book"
	as some one writing a "C" compiler.  They read K&R, then
	write some code.  Does the writer owe the publisher royalities?
	But if Compilers, Inc (:-) copyrights their "C", can other
	companies still copyright _their own_ "C" compilers?
	Also, the libraries may have a similar `look & feel' to them.

((Please direct me to information about these issuses.
  Lawyers may contact me as well... ))

#endif

-----------------------------------------------------------------
       You are what you click.  (and if you click it twice...)
         brian witt           |   brian@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
       You are what you click  (and if you click it twice...)
         brian witt        |   brian@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------