🚀 go-pugleaf

imp@dancer.Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) writes:

>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

Or, why shouldn't Lotus clone makers stop advertising 'Works just like
Lotus' and start advertising 'Conforms to informal industry standard
documented in _Using_123_PDQ_ by Someone Or another'?

Could the book publisher then sue?  And don't all those books have pretty
much the same look & feel?  (you know, numbered pages, table-of-contents,
...)

Just wondering.

-- Evan

***************************************************************************
Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT for so | Evan M. Manning
long.  You feel sleepy.  Notice how restful it is  |      is
to watch the cursor blink.  Close your eyes.  The  |manning@gap.cco.caltech.edu
opinions stated above are yours.  You cannot       | manning@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
imagine why you ever felt otherwise.               | gleeper@tybalt.caltech.edu