brian@babbage.csus.edu (Brian Witt) (09/18/90)
I've read the Cox book. I've double clicked on a NeXT computer.
I've printed the class interface files on the NeXT. I noticed that
all the copyright notices say "NeXT, Inc", and not "Stepstone, Inc".
I've written an Objective-C translator (much like that in the Cox
book). I want to distribute public-domain classes to provide a
reason to use my translator (very useless without them). I'd like
the classes to be compatible with those people are already using.
Question: Are there differences in the base classes between those
NeXT ships and Stepstone ships? Classes like: Object, List, Storeable,
Hashable. I figured out the windowing classes are different
(Stepstone has Menu subclass of List).
Also: Would it be legal to read doc files (NeXT or Stepstone) and
then distribute my version of their libraries as part of my
Objective-C like translator? If I sold them, would I have to
pay royalties, even though I haven't entered into licensing
agreements with either party? (Is there a comp.legal-issues group :-)
#if LEGAL_ISSUES
I see "reproducing software based on what you see in a book"
as some one writing a "C" compiler. They read K&R, then
write some code. Does the writer owe the publisher royalities?
But if Compilers, Inc (:-) copyrights their "C", can other
companies still copyright _their own_ "C" compilers?
Also, the libraries may have a similar `look & feel' to them.
((Please direct me to information about these issuses.
Lawyers may contact me as well... ))
#endif
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You are what you click. (and if you click it twice...)
brian witt | brian@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You are what you click (and if you click it twice...)
brian witt | brian@babbage.ecs.csus.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------