View Single Post
Old 06-19-2013, 08:07 AM   #19
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillAdams View Post
Providing art direction for directly re-creating a particular cover design is certainly not ethical, and fails the ``smell'' test of, ``Would a person believe this work was created w/o access to and knowledge of that work.'' --- moreover, in a court case, such a set of instructions would be a ``smoking gun''.
It really, really wouldn't.
A clean room reimplementation is not copyright violation.
AMD produced completely Intel-compatible CPUs using the same process. One team would example the Intel CPU and produce a complete specification of how it worked. A second team would take that specification and produce a compatible CPU of their own. As long as team two never actually see the original CPU, this is clean.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote