Date: 22 Dec 2000 13:07:39 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: "SteveB" <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com> Cc: "Drew Eckhardt" <drew@PoohSticks.ORG>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT Message-ID: <xzpg0jgd5h0.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: "SteveB"'s message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:52:11 -0800" References: <NEBBIGOKKMNLOMOHMJNPAEMJCNAA.admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"SteveB" <admin@bsdfan.cncdsl.com> writes: > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. Hardware decisions > in general are mirrors of software cases. Hardware reverse > engineering tends to be legal. But with software they use Clean > programmer, Dirty programmer. In other words you can write a program > exactly like another, if you can prove you never saw the other > program. If you saw the similar program you are dirty. AT&T (or Novell, don't remember if it was before or after the sale of USL) tried to use that argument against UCB. It was rejected. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpg0jgd5h0.fsf>