Dan Shafer wrote:
> So I draw the (tentative) conclusion (with no research into recent
case law
> and a big caveat that I'm not a practicing attorney, just a law-trained
> layman) that the xTalk *language* would not be subject to copyright
but the
> underlying programming code that makes that instrction set work would be.
> Thus I can write an xTalk that is command-for-command identical with
> Transcript as long as I use different code, algorithms, language, etc.,
> underneath it all.
Thanks for the clarification, Dan. That's sort of what I was trying to
say, but you said it better.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
