🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <230@dmsd.UUCP> bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) writes:
>
>The clones go one step over of the mark ... If I produced a "Star Wars"
>movie "clone" with a similar script, plot, names, and ending the courts would
>knock it down in a flash -- even though it was "original" work BASED OR NOT
>on the real movie.
>
>There are dozens of ways to re-write "Return of the Jedi" most would not fly
>in the face of a copyright suit .... I don't know why computer jocks are
>so dam fire sure they are immune to REAL copyright infringment proceedings.
>Rewriting/coding some ones program (bios, application, utility or OS) is
>the same is rewriting a movie --- if not legally corrupt, it is clearly morally
>corrupt.
>-- 
>John Bass (DBA: Fastime, DBA:DMS Design)

Yes the clones go over the mark (perhaps).. but total rewrites of software
with the same functionality don't. Here's why:

The example given about Star Wars superficially holds water, until you make
the fundamental distinction between Star Wars and (say) Visicalc:

Star Wars is a work of art, and any duplication is both a duplication of
material and of "functionality", as it were. Visicalc "duplicates" such as 
Supercalc is only a duplication of functionality. Much like building a better
mouse trap. Copyright (in my LAYMAN'S understanding) only applies if you 
steal paragraphs from books, and so on. If you express the same thought better,
(or worse) nobody can touch you.

Copyright suit are only successful if the plaintiff can prove that you stole
his idea. Merely looking the same is not good enough grounds. Nor should it be.

Chris Shaw    watmath!watrose!cdshaw  or  cdshaw@watmath
University of Waterloo
Bogus as HELL !!!