3 ms·
I think you've missed the point. There are dozens different of implementations of each. As far as I know, nobody got DMCAed by the inventors of either for wri
by ratherbefuddled 14y ago
I think you've missed the point. There are dozens different of implementations of each.
As far as I know, nobody got DMCAed by the inventors of either for writing one.
Yet here, we have designers trying to claim ownership of a particular set of colours and a vague notion of style. Both of which were around before their "implementation" was.
- derleth 14y agoBut only one method, only one underlying design. That's the point here. > Yet here, we have designers trying to claim ownership of a particular set of colours and a vague notion of style. Exactly my point.
- ratherbefuddled 14y agoIt's not clear to me from your comment whether you are agreeing or misunderstanding. The underlying method is an idea, not an implementation. It is not subject to copyright. It might be patentable in some places, but that has nothing to do with the DMCA. Developers generally scorn software patents (owning an idea) but respect copyright (owning an implementation). The designers here are trying to assert copyright over an idea, which you absolutely cannot do.