Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:546 alt.religion.computers:1119 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: GNUclear Warfare Message-ID: <4773@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 16 Dec 89 19:49:20 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1989Dec15.035457.7968@world.std.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 34 In article <1989Dec15.035457.7968@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) [Responding to me] > >> But at what point have the software vendors really established state > >> enforced monopoly businesses? > >When you can't write your own version of their software and sell it or > >give it away. Ask a hard one. > But that was my point, we are at that point. I agree. > You seem to be utterly unaware of what look and feel software suits > are all about, no? No. I agree. Apple's behaviour in this case is unethical. I think it ironic that one of the losers in this case is Atari (I don't know the details of the agreement between DRI and Apple over GEM, but I do remember that they had to change the GEM interface, so GEM on the Atari ST is no longer the same as GEM on the IBM-PC). You see, Atari was the "winner" in the original Pac-man look and feel lawsuit. Ironic. Where we don't agree is whether or not this is relevent to normal copyrights and piracy. I don't see that it's any more relevent than Werner von Braun's lawsuit against Tom Lehrer. That is: there's a connection, but it's pretty far removed from GNU. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"