Re: Mimic Spartan(s) for me!

[CUTjefbla@bconnex.net (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Wed, 23 May 2001 13:22:50 +0200, "Sheldon Simms"
<sheldon@semanticedge.com> wrote:

>But this rationalization of yours is just plain wrong. If the starting
>point of the exercise was a binary image of Appleworks, then no
>matter how much "rearranging" was done, the result is a derivative
>work of Appleworks. Creating a derivative work is illegal without
>permission from the copyright holder.  There's not a question of
>"whether" the work is illegal. It is.

Yes, creating a derivative work or the same work by rearranging the
parts of the original is illegal.  Please note that right after I
mentioned rearranging the code I also said "and they could somehow
prove that they didn't create it directly from the original code".
This means that if they do create it illegally then they will have to
pull a fast one to prove that they didn't.

However, most companies can't be bothered with trying to pull off that
kind of thing so they go to the extra effort of creating stuff that
doesn't directly use the old code.  It is just easier for them to do
so and way safer.

Also note that in the example of AppleWorks that we've been using, you
can legally create a clone of AppleWorks, you just need to be able to
prove that you created it without using Apple's code.  You can run
Apple's code to see how it acts and make your code act the same.  The
problem is, if you end up with large sections of code that is byte for
byte identical to Apple's code, then you have to change your code so
that it is no longer identical to Apple's so that you will have a much
easier time of proving you created the code yourself.

This situation is different than taking Apple's code and just
rearranging the subroutines and changing the address of all the calls
to those subroutines that we were discussing above.  The situation we
were discussing above would be VERY difficult to pull off because
you'd have to do way more than just rearrange the subroutines.

>Unless the Spartan ROM was produced without reference to the
>original Apple ROM, then it is an illegal derivative work, and you
>are in possession of it. Therefore, you can be true to your absolutist
>copyright principles and destroy the Spartan ROM, or you can
>admit that there are times when it's ok to acquire and possess works
>that are, technically, violations of copyright law; which is just what
>I've been saying all along.

Once it is proven that the Spartan ROM was illegally created, then
I'll destroy my ROM or whatever needs to be done to satisfy the law.
At present there is absolutely no proof that it was created illegally.
Even if it is determined that the ROM is illegal, the company that
created it will most likely have to pay Apple damages for all the ROMs
they sold and therefore I can continue to use my Spartan ROM as if I
had bought it directly from Apple because Apple would have been paid
for it.

--
 Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II Unversity on A2Central.com