Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!shelby!lindy!calder@aramis
From: calder@aramis (Paul Calder)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: dclock "authorship"
Summary: great minds think alike
Message-ID: <3767@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 8 Jul 89 22:14:55 GMT
References: <113769@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@lindy.Stanford.EDU (News Service)
Reply-To: calder@aramis (Paul Calder)
Organization: InterViews/Allegro group, Stanford University
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: argv%eureka@Sun.COM (Dan Heller)

In article <113769@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, argv%eureka (Dan Heller) writes:

>I have had a number of letters saying that my digitcal clock
>that I recently posted to comp.sources.x was just like the
>one in the Interviews distribution.  One letter even implied
>that I "stole" their idea.
>
>Just to set the record straight, I am the author of the digital
>clock that I posted and whoever wrote the "interviews" version
>based their program on my idea.  To wit, I originally wrote that
>program under SunView and posted it to the net about 2.5 years
>ago.  Functionally, it's just about the same as what you see now.

It seems that both versions of 'dclock' appeared at about the same
time.  I wrote the InterViews version was written about 3 years ago,
although it was not distributed at that time (and did not run on X).

The similarity of the clocks' appearances (and the names!) is purely
coincidental -- I guess this in just another example of parallel
evolution!

Paul Calder
Stanford
calder@interviews.stanford.edu