At 12:53 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Richard Gambrell wrote:
>Jeff Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> I suspect that Cognos would be just as passionate now about protecting
>> their assets as they ever were.  Why shouldn't they be?
>
>Surely, but if the new target was to a transition-only conversion to another
>lanquage instead of directly run the code, would there be the same legal
>grounds to complain?  (Yes, I know legal eagles can cost $$ even when without
>grounds.)
>

It seems that it would raise some interesting arguments about whether an
arbitrary string of characters could in any way be 'copyrighted', and
protected (as a source code of PH type products). There would indoubtedly be
some leagles who would attempt to make that case, but I should have thought
that there would also be some who would be capable of help protect our
freedom to do what ever we like to our own files containing our own data.

If, after all it is legal to print a PH source file to a printer, or to the
screen, there isn't rally that much difference to running it through a
dofferent sort of translator, is there?...


TOny