🚀 go-pugleaf

        I' sorry, this has gone far enough. I don't see anyone (well
maybe one) here arguing against COPYRIGHT of a program. By this I mean
verbatim byte-wise reproduction of an original. This is illegal and
should be. PATENT covers the use of a method for an operation. This
prevents independent re-invention of a function.

        The look-and-feel suits cover a grey area. They don't really
cover the *method* because they are not related to the algorithm in
use. However, they are not (in my opinion) subject to legitimate
copywrite, because they are independent of the code text that produces
the effect in question (the user interface, what ever that is)

        I think that those who put in the effort to innovate are
entitled to the rewards, and I believe that that right should be
protected by law. However, such reward should not stifle innovation
and advancement on the part of others.

        In my opinion, US copyright and patent law are unsuitable for
application to software. Neither one was developed with software in
mind. What we need is a new set of statuates that are designed around
the inherent characteristics of software (Text instructions for a
general purpose computational engine. Instructions for a machine that,
theoretically, can do ANYTHING.) These laws must be designed to take
into account the need to reward innovation, the need to allow
propigation of techniques, and the ease of mechanical reproduction.

        I know, dream on.

- Mark

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lamourine, internet: lamourine@draper.com
disclaimer: Nobody ever listened to me before. Why start now?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------