3 ms·
Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form. No, no, no, that is not what I sai
by protomyth 9y ago
Your original post was about IBM not being able to copyright the PC Bios. Which is simply not true in any way shape or form.
No, no, no, that is not what I said. I was talking about the API of the BIOS. The BIOS source code is, of course, copyrightable. That is why IBM was able to make it very hard for people to copy it until folks did a proper clean room. Why would I go into detail about the counter measure if it was not copyrightable? That makes no sense.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoInteresting edit to your original post. So their countermeasure was to try to taint everyone in the whole universe so a clean room reimplimentation would not be possible? Wow. Interesting interpretation.
- protomyth 9y agoThat is not an interpretation, that was an actual strategy. They put enough information and source code into the documents that described its function to taint anyone who read the documentation. There are multiple sources (and I do believe some TV) on IBM's strategy. Compaq's Garry Stimac realized the problem when he read the manuals. A clean room strategy was setup.
- hcknwscommenter 9y agoYou said: >My original post was about a situation where the creator of an API didn't believe it to be copyrightable and then made an attempt at protecting it a different way. What "different way" are we talking about here? IBM asserted their copyright quite forcefully against Eagle and shut them down.
- protomyth 9y agoYou really need to read ScottBurson's commen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16693994 because you don't seem to understand the difference between an API and source code. Eagle directly copied the source code of the BIOS, they were not sued for copying the API.