From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261262AbTD1UGL (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:06:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261265AbTD1UGK (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:06:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:49597 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261262AbTD1UGJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:06:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:18:16 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: Larry McVoy , Ross Vandegrift , Chris Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Message-ID: <20030428201816.GB23581@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Matthias Schniedermeyer , Larry McVoy , Ross Vandegrift , Chris Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030427183553.GA955879@hiwaay.net> <20030427185037.GA23581@work.bitmover.com> <20030427220717.GA24991@willow.seitz.com> <20030427223255.GH23068@work.bitmover.com> <20030428200424.GA9252@citd.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030428200424.GA9252@citd.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 4.5, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:04:24PM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:32:55PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > I don't think it is exclusively the open source folks that have the > > business guys worried, they are also worried about the illegal wholesale > > replication of the software which occurs in places like China. > > apples? pears? > > 100% copy or "binary clone" of a software is illegal, thats correct. > > Reimplementing the "ideas" behind a software is legal. Sometimes. If you sit down with product A and use it in the process of creating product B which does what product A does, the courts have held that you can't copy look-and-feel for example. Independent derivation of the same thing is fine but just blatent copying is not. It's true that you can copy the "math" as it were. But look and feel isn't math. The fact that you can be sued over look and feel is one of the reasons that people do "clean room" reimplementations; if you can prove you never saw WhizzWidget2000 and you reimplemented it then you are safe from any such suit. Proving clean room is not easy, especially if the product is widely available. Look at the suits between intel and some of the chip clones and you'll see what I mean. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm