🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Dec15.035457.7968@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) [Responding to me]
> >> But at what point have the software vendors really established state
> >> enforced monopoly businesses?

> >When you can't write your own version of their software and sell it or
> >give it away. Ask a hard one.

> But that was my point, we are at that point.

I agree.

> You seem to be utterly unaware of what look and feel software suits
> are all about, no?

No.

I agree.

Apple's behaviour in this case is unethical. I think it ironic that one of
the losers in this case is Atari (I don't know the details of the agreement
between DRI and Apple over GEM, but I do remember that they had to change
the GEM interface, so GEM on the Atari ST is no longer the same as GEM on
the IBM-PC). You see, Atari was the "winner" in the original Pac-man look
and feel lawsuit. Ironic.

Where we don't agree is whether or not this is relevent to normal copyrights
and piracy. I don't see that it's any more relevent than Werner von Braun's
lawsuit against Tom Lehrer. That is: there's a connection, but it's pretty
far removed from GNU.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"