🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul2.024702.3347@weyrich.UUCP> orville@weyrich.UUCP (Orville R. Weyrich) writes:
> [ ... ad infinitum deleted ]
>Was SCP's product a 'derivative work' of CP/M (in the legal sense that the
>CP/M source code was modified to obtain it), or was it a clone of CP/M
>(i.e. re-developed from specifications without reusing the source code)?

>My impression was that it was the latter. No?

I suspect it was part of both. SCO Pro, however, was cloned, not derived,
as was Mirror, VP Calc, GEM, and many other products that have been targets
of copyright lawsuits. I don't agree with the direction that the law has
been going on them, and don't buy products from the filers. 

I also think this subject has consumed enough bandwidth, and think it
should be dropped or moved to email (or, possibly, misc.legal).

It has certainly diverged widely from anything having to do with 
SysV 386.

-- 
Gary Heston   System Mismanager and technoflunky   uunet!sci34hub!gary or
My opinions, not theirs.    SCI Systems, Inc.       gary@sci34hub.sci.com
Become a pheresis donor. Loan your blood to the Red Cross for a couple
of hours. They, and cancer patients, will appreciate it.