Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!johnl From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What documentation is fair/legal to use to develop clone software? Message-ID: <1990Jul29.031341.20461@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Date: 29 Jul 90 03:13:41 GMT References: <1990Jul19.175923.2015@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <70K&Z.&@splut.conmicro.com> <1990Jul24.005745.19262@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Lines: 20 In article mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >I am developing a clone of some major AT&T software ... > >The question is: What can I base my knowledge on? Until last week, I would have said that reverse engineering software based on publicly available sources, e.g. commercially published books, but not using restricted or licensed materials, e.g. the header files or the Lions boos, would be safe. Since the 1-2-3 look and feel decision, though, it's entirely up in the air. In that case, which is being appealed, the judge held that even though there was no claim whatsoever that the defendants used any licensed or secret materials, their program was infringing merely because of its functional similarities to 1-2-3. So it's anyone's guess. Good luck. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born on the same day.