larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/21/87)
Can someone explain their definition of "AT&T licensed software"
which resulted in withdrawal of the ln03 plot program that was just posted
to comp.sources.unix?
I am not trying to criticize anyone; I would just like some details
and an honest answer from anyone involved.
Examining the posted code, I did see some internal function names
[like getsi() ] that were identical to those in the AT&T Sys V plot functions.
I also saw some identical variable names [x1, x2, etc.], and some identical
statements manipulating those variable names, but I would like to know by
what standard of proof this could be considered AT&T licensed software.
I did not completely examine and compare the all of the posted source code,
so perhaps there was a more blatant example which I failed to detect.
I don't think it unreasonable that a person could independently
derive some identical function names and variables with mnemonic significance.
As an example, if one is going to draw a circle, is it not a reasonable
approach to have a function called circle()? Now, I know the AT&T software
calls their circle function "circle()", but might this be used a basis to
claim prohibited distribution of licensed software?
In case anyone is wondering, this issue struck a particular "nerve"
as far as graphics software is concerned - so I really would appreciate some
feedback.
<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/
<> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"