Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: ogre wont compile
Message-ID: <785@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 08:36:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.785
Posted: Mon Sep 21 08:36:30 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Sep-87 05:21:11 EDT
References: <478@sugar.UUCP> <6700003@cpe>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 29
Summary: No. Yes.

In article <6700003@cpe>, tif@cpe.UUCP writes:
> Is Steve's original a computer game?
No. But there is a licensed version of Ogre out there that *is* a computer
game.

> Is it a violation (read "do you think
> it is a violation") to write a computer game which models a non-computer
> game?
I'm not a jurist, but there's plenty of precedent for people getting their
tits sued off for copying board games, and there's been precedent for computer
software that copies other computer software leading to legal action... even in
pretty far-fetched cases like the Atari PAC-MAN case and the Apple
versus GEM case (ironic, since it was Atari (who uses GEM) that established
the precedent for look-and-feel!).

I wouldn't guess how a jury would react. I'm just advising caution.
Particularly since SCO is likely to be seen to have deep pockets.

> I love "monop".
Copyright Parker Brothers.

In terms of this case, Steve Jackson has been made aware of the situation
through Fred Fish (who was distributing Ogre on his collection of PD disks),
and has stated that he doesn't care for the practice.

Steve is a litigious fella.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
--                 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?