Legal/Permission Question

[Walter Bright]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> I have occasionally wondered about the situation in which one looks at code
> "X" and thinks 'This is horrible. I can do better' and then goes on to
> write "Y", which looks nothing like "X" but was developed with the
> knowledge of "X". Now, if "X" and "Y" can be used interchangeably to solve
> the same problem, is "Y" deemed to have been derived from "X"? 
> 
> In other words, is the motive of the author a factor? In the case above,
> "X" and "Y" are totally dissimilar but "Y" was written /because/ the author
> knew the details of "X". If the author did not know "X" but still wrote
> "Y", could it be a derived work? 

What will happen if things go far enough is an independent expert will 
be hired by the lawyers who will comb through the code evaluating how 
similar or dissimilar it is.