🚀 go-pugleaf

: For example (albeit a stupid one),  If I one day decide
: that I want to clone `gcc`.  Since the formal specifications
: for how gcc works (ie language constructs, option switches,etc)
: are available to the public, I can go ahead and create a
: gcc clone that will accept the same input and provide
: the same functionality.  I can not be sued unless 
: I used code from gcc source.

So how is that different than me going out and getting about a dozen books
on Lotus, cloning it, and then getting sued by Lotus?  All the information
that I have used must be in the public domain because these books were able
to get it.  All of the ones that I have seen have had no "claimer" of
permission from Lotus to use the technical information in their documentation
as a source (although a few list it as a reference).  Why would it be ok for
me to write a book that described Lotus w/o getting sued, while it would
not be OK for me to write a 1-2-3 clone?  I'm talking from a legal point of
view here, not an ecconomic one.%  The Lotus manual that I have doesn't state
that I can't use the information to create a new 1-2-3, although there is
something in the S/W license that prohibits me from disassembling the machine
code.

Again, what exactly did the judge rule?  And will it be overturned by a more
sane court.

Warner

--
% The ecconmic answer is that books about 1-2-3 sell copies of 1-2-3 thus
  putting money into Lotus' bank accounts, while clone sales take money
  out of those accounts.
--
Warner Losh		imp@Solbourne.COM
Boycott Lotus.		#include <std/disclaimer>