From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 22 4: 8: 5 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 22 04:08:00 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3152637B698 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16925; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 13:07:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from des@ofug.org) Sender: des@ofug.org X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: "SteveB" Cc: "Drew Eckhardt" , Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 22 Dec 2000 13:07:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: "SteveB"'s message of "Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:52:11 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "SteveB" 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