Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!gatech!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 23:40:37 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <318858E5.20E432F8@lambert.org>
References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com>
<3176D081.794BDF32@FreeBSD.org> <4la318$ah3@sidhe.memra.com>
<31794DB6.7DE974DF@lambert.org> <940@crane.ukc.ac.uk>
<31866E12.67FD83BE@lambert.org> <ywt91fchved.fsf@emile.math.ucsb.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:22780 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:901 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3608 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3465 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18543 comp.os.linux.advocacy:47696
Axel Boldt wrote:
] Terry> Their Lesstif clone worries me, mostly because of potential
] Terry> legal problems caused by the way it was developed. They are
] Terry> implementing interfaces which aren't publically documented
] Terry> anywhere (programming books, OSF books, etc.) except in OSF
] Terry> header files and the namelist of OSF libXm.a.
]
] Is it illegal to read header files?
Not if you live in the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court...
(Just like assisted suicide is currently legal in that jurisdiction,
since that court struct down Oregon's anti-assisted suicide law).
There is still another level of appeal -- the US Supreme Court.
If appealed there, and accepted for hearing, the Supreme Court
decision would make nationally binding case law.
So it's not yet cast in stone.
It would be hard to prove and get a summary dismissal, so the
cost would go expotential if you looked at the header files
(OK -- now prove you *only* looked at the header files).
Looking at the namelist is an examination of functional structure
(even if you didn't look at that part of the namelist). I think
the only think that would save you there is international (EU
"piracy clause") or clean-room reverse engineering.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.