[openbeos] Re: Sunday amusement
- From: "Graham Gilmore" <grahamg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:30:54 -0500
>I'm not a lawyer (I just play one on TV ;-)). But a possible suit from
the
>owners of the BeOS goes beyond what is underneath the covers. If the
look
>and design can be confused with the original, by the consumer, then
there
>are copyright laws that protect the author of that design (in this case
>Palm). If the OS is a 100% knock off of the original (except maybe its
>name) in terms of look, behavior, design, API, then that product is
>violating the copyright of the original. It becomes more of a question
will
>Palm enforce that copyright. They would if they felt the clone product
>threatens them or that the consumer may be confused by the clone
(unlikely
>here since Palm is not currently marketing their original). As far as
I
>know, there is no BeOS US patents with R5, because that would be
another can
>of worms.
>> Well, here is what amused me - under limitations (in the EULA) it
>> actually says that you cannot reverse engineer this "program". Also,
>> it
>> says that you cannot release benchmarks of this "program" without
>> written permission from BeInc. Amusing. but who reads the EULA
>> anyway.
Aside from look & feel stuff or reverse engineering, what about the
copyright notices in the BeOS header files that we're using to reproduce
the API?
Graham
Other related posts:
