>Huh?! I mean besides the derogatory "rip off" comment. The point is that a
>UI can't be considered intellectual property any more than the way that a car
>dashboard arranges it's indicators. I don't agree with your definition of
>clean-rooming, in that I don't give the UI any special treatment. If an API
>can be clean-roomed and be functionally identical without infringement, then
>why can't a UI -- including look-alike icons and similar key combinations and
>screen wording? Assuming of course that they don't screen grab or use any
>copyrighted resources (forms, graphics, code). The parallel being that you
>can "see" the API and still have a clean-room implementation of it, just as
>you can see the UI and still make up your own resources.
I don't make up the rules, I am just commenting on what I have learned
about them. And the fact is the UI, look and feel, and pictures/logos/icons
ARE copyrightable. If you make a freeware app that looks exactly the same
as someone else's, that is copyright infringement. This isn't my opinion,
it's the law. Ask a lawyer if you don't beleive me. I just asked mine 30
minutes ago...
>There is obviously a financial damage argument. But free software isn't just
>software that is dumped at $0. It's a gift to a community, and to that end
>why is the author to be held 'financially' responsible for causing a
>commercial author's grief.. when the free software author isn't after
>financial gain or even necessarily interested in the use of monetary exchange
>for software. A crude example (one that popped into my evil head); that is
>like prostitutes suing housewives because they are hurting their business.
If a freeware author infringes on another's copyright, then it DOES
materially affect the original author. He is losing sales because someone
has used illegal means to create an alternative to his software that is
free. That affects the original author's livelihood. How can you disagree
with that?!
Alan Pinstein
Synergy Solutions, Inc.
http://www.synsolutions.com
1-800-210-5293
