Tue Aug 30 17:20:58 CDT 2005
What is protectable?
- not protected
- must be an "expression...of a set of instructions"
- Autodesk Inc v Dyason (Aust): copying function of AutoCAD lock but not code (no infringement)
- (cf: plot elements in literary/dramatic works capable of protection)
- eg. structural arrangements of modules and subroutines
- yes if expression of idea, & no if ideas or functions: difficult line to draw
- yes if organisation, sequence, arrangement or compilation
- not protectable: elements of software which are:
* dictated by efficiency or external factors (eg h/w) specs, compatibility reqms, industry standards; or
* public domain
- not if similarity is due only to similar subject matter
* analogy: drawing of a hand
* eg any 2 word processors will have some structural similarities
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wine-devel-admin at winehq.org [mailto:wine-devel-admin at winehq.org] On Behalf Of Mike McCormack
> Sent: 25. marts 2005 10:39
> To: Jonathan Wilson
> Cc: wine-devel at winehq.org; ros-dev at reactos.com
> Subject: Re: I think I know how uxtheme works...
> Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > What I am doing here is clean-room reverse engineering.
> There's no reason that we need to expose ourselves to any legal risk at
> all. It may be your opinion that reading assembly code and describing
> it is legal and safe, but I don't agree and I'm sure others who work on
> Wine don't either.
> The original IBM BIOS was clean room reverse engineered because there
> was not enough documentation available for it. We have MSDN, which is
> not 100% complete, but is good enough for most purposes. Other things
> can be deduced from test programs. Information that cannot be deduced
> by a test program is irrelevant.
> Reverse engineering does not help Wine. Casual observers will assume
> that Wine is the result of reverse engineering by disassembly, which is
> incorrect and harmful.
More information about the wine-devel