Mach without ATT code? <was: OS costs>

[James Van Artsdalen]

In <73 at raysnec.UUCP>, shwake at raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) wrote:

> david at twg.com (David S. Herron) writes:

| CMU's plan is to do whatever they can to free it from the little
| snippets of AT&T and Berkeley code that are left.  It's quite doable,
| just takes some effort and time is all.

> Would not such an effort require that the developers work in "clean room"
> conditions?

That is not obvious.  "Vault v. Quaid" a couple of years ago clearly
stated that direct copying of code was permissible if that code was
insigificent (32 bytes in that case - 5th circuit appeals court).

> Recall that development of legitimate VGA and PC BIOS that would stand
> the legal test required that that those engaged in the effort work
> from nothing but specifications.

I don't believe that any of BIOS "cloning" was tested legally.  Hence
we do not know if the "clean room" approach was insufficient or
overkill.

There have been very few good legal tests of software copyright law.
"Good legal test" means a case at the appellate level that actually
addresses a gray area directly.  The "Vault v. Quaid" case didn't say
how much direct copying was permissible, but at least it said "some
not none".
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen          james at bigtex.cactus.org   "Live Free or Die"
Dell Computer Co    9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759         512-338-8789