I wrote:
>>Obviously you shouldn't rip the code or pull the resources from someone's
>>project without their permission. That is unethical and illegal if the
>>author hasn't explicitly granted you this permission in his license. But I
>>cannot agree at all that it is a copyright violation to produce a free
>>work-alike of a popular piece of software -- assuming it was done using
>>"clean room" methods. That happens all the time, and for good reason.
>>Free software is good!
Then On 04-Mar-99 Alan Pinstein wrote:
> I don't know exactly what you mean by work-alike, but copying someone's
> interface IS illegal and unethical. Clean-rooming an application usually
> refers to having people that HAVEN'T seen how something works make
> something that does the exact same thing. It is practically impossible that
> a developer who HASN'T seen a UI would have theirs look the same way.
> Besides, a good program had lots of UI planning, and that's part of the
> effort that goes into programming, UI Design. You can't just rip it off...
Huh?! I mean besides the derogatory "rip off" comment. The point is that a
UI can't be considered intellectual property any more than the way that a car
dashboard arranges it's indicators. I don't agree with your definition of
clean-rooming, in that I don't give the UI any special treatment. If an API
can be clean-roomed and be functionally identical without infringement, then
why can't a UI -- including look-alike icons and similar key combinations and
screen wording? Assuming of course that they don't screen grab or use any
copyrighted resources (forms, graphics, code). The parallel being that you
can "see" the API and still have a clean-room implementation of it, just as
you can see the UI and still make up your own resources.
I may not have had this view all of my life, but I am more practical in my
older age. And as it turns out, I am using systems these days consisting
entirely of work-alike software :)
> I certainly agree that it's great if a freeware author makes an acceptable
> subsitute for a particular application, but it CAN BE DONE WITHOUT
> VIOLATING someone else's intellectual property. Just because a freeware
> author copies a useful app and doesn't charge his customers doesn't mean
> that he's not financially damaging the original commercial author.
There is obviously a financial damage argument. But free software isn't just
software that is dumped at $0. It's a gift to a community, and to that end
why is the author to be held 'financially' responsible for causing a
commercial author's grief.. when the free software author isn't after
financial gain or even necessarily interested in the use of monetary exchange
for software. A crude example (one that popped into my evil head); that is
like prostitutes suing housewives because they are hurting their business.
/* Chris Faherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, finger for PGP */
