NO! (Re: Does GNUstep infringe on Apple's Intellectual Property?)

[Gregory John Casamento]

Scott/John,

Sorry John, but *frankly* Scott is *way* off base.  The simple answer is "NO". 
Read below for more information...

For something to be a "derivative work" in the legal sense it must use
copyrighted material from a given source and update or modify that material
(e.g. copy a header or a source file and update it, the result is a derivative
work).  GNUstep DOES NOT fit this definition.

I must be concise and to the point here:

GNUstep *does not* rely on any Apple copyrighted material *whatsoever*. 
GNUstep *is not* a derivative work of anything from Apple Computer.  
Implementing the spec *does not* constitute infringement or make GNUstep a
derivative work since the spec simply describes the API.

GNUstep is a *totally independent, from scratch*, implementation of the
OpenStep API as well as some of the extensions added later by Apple.

The OpenStep API was published by Apple and Sun in 1994 as an open standard. 
The standard is, of course, copyrighted by someone but, as stated above,
implementing it does not infringe it.

Furthermore many important court rulings have indicated that APIs themselves
cannot be copyrighted and that it is fair practice to implement a compatible
APIs.   See FreeDOS for an example of a DOS clone which can run DOS programs,
implements the DOS API, but doesn't use any MS copyrights.  The situation is
similar with WINE which is a clone of the Windows API and it also doesn't use
any Microsoft copyrights.

A short tutorial on copyrights: Copyrights cover *expressions* of ideas, not
ideas themselves.  For example: You can write a version of Alice in Wonderland
and I can write a version of the same thing and neither of us would be in
violation of the others copyright if both works were created independently.

Also, I urge you both to avoid the term "Intellectual Property" as it is
inherently confusing since it aggregates together several desparate groups of
law: copyright, patent, and trademark; none of which have much to do with one
another.

GNUstep, to my knowledge, does NOT infringe any Apple patents.  But, given the
US's non-functional patent system *ANYTHING* could infringe someones patent
these days.

John, if you are so paranoid and so convinced that GNUstep does infringe on
Apples Copyrights, despite what I and others are telling you vehemently, then
there's no convincing you otherwise.

--- John Anderson <janderson3272@wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> Thanks for the response.  Frankly , I think you are hitting the nail on 
> head.
> 
> - John
> 
> 
> PS: By the way, the discuss GNUstep  list-server is posting my messages 
> with up to a 12 hour delay.
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 9:21 AM, Scott Christley wrote:
> 
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I grappled with the same question when I originally got involved with 
> > GNUstep back in the mid-90's.  The answer to the question is clearly 
> > yes.  If you were to look at the original OpenStep specification, you 
> > will see that it has NeXT's copyright on it with no mention of a 
> > license, which means that all rights are reserved.  I had contacted 
> > NeXT back in those days about a license for GNUstep development, but 
> > they declined to respond.  They were more interested in companies who 
> > could infuse them with large chunks of cash, like Sun did when 
> > OpenStep was briefly available for Solaris.  To make matters worse, 
> > Apple has patented any number of technologies in use in OpenStep; the 
> > target-action paradigm is one example.
> >
> > Considering all this negativity, one might wonder why Apple hasn't 
> > shut GNUstep down yet.  There are plenty of speculative answers:
> >
> > * No significant commercial entity to sue.
> > * Apple has to show financial damages and hardship; Apple stock and 
> > revenues don't seem to be impacted much by GNUstep.
> > * Apple is "friendly" towards open source groups.
> >
> > My personal opinion is that Apple does not consider GNUstep a threat.  
> > The implementation is incomplete and lacks the final polish of OS X, 
> > plus there aren't droves of OS X software companies porting their 
> > software.  If many years down the road, GNUstep does become a 
> > considerable commercial force and Apple's fortunes have waned; then it 
> > is perfectly reasonable that they could "pull a sco".  Then again, if 
> > some commercial company does make it big with GNUstep, the best favor 
> > they could do is buy off Apple and secure GNUstep's future.
> >
> > cheers
> > Scott

Do what you will and please stop spreading unwarranted, untrue and unecessary
FUD.

Thanks, GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento
-- bheron on #gnustep, #linuxstep, & #gormtalk ----------------
Please sign the petition against software patents at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html
Petition to make Lighthouse Application Suite Free Software at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/laafs/petition.html
--- Main Developer of Gorm (featured in April Linux Journal) ---

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com