🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4gm4to$510@news-f.iadfw.net> clyde@iadfw.net (Clyde Coffey) writes:
>stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) wrote:
>
>
>>WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!  BSD used AT&Ts code to create a "derivative work".
>
>Under license. And royalties.
>
>>SURE, AT&T COULD have sued BSD, 
>
>Why, did Berkeley even violate their license agreement.
>
>>and others, but THEN their code wouldn't be
>>open, and would become WORTHLESS!!!!!!  
>
>Yeah, right. A friend of mine works at a company that pays six figures
>a year to IBM for software lease. Your definition of worthless is
>different from mine.
>
>>What if IBM sued all THEIR competitors?
>
>A better idea than suing one's licensees.
>
>>BTW MS/DOS is built on a CPM/86 knockoff which was DERIVED from CP/M!
>
>The guy that wrote CP/M (Kendall, something like that) said that he
>should have sued. Whether he had a case or not, I have no idea.
>Remember, it's only the copyrighted code that counts for derivitive
>work, not the "look and feel". For my opinion only, nearly all "look
>and feel" ideas should not be ownable.
>

But you said that if he even LOOKED at BSD code, and tried to emulate it that
it would be a DERIVED WORK.

I ALSO don't think "look and feel" should be ownable.  

Steve