On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 11:53:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> > > > > > Worse case scenario, this could be clean-room reimplemented. > > > > Before doing that, somebody ought to approach Apple and ask explicit > > > permission to reverse-engineer the boot-block code and distribute the > > > reverse-engineered source under a free license. > > > You don't need permission to reverse-engineer anything. > > If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright, > and the reverse-engineering follows it tightly enough that the result > is a derivate of the original thing, then some kind of permission *is* > needed. I don't think your understanding of reverse-engineering is applicable in the U.S. A copyright is not a patent. If you came by a functionally identical result through independent means (and clean-room reverse-engineering qualifies as such under U.S. court precedent), then you're free and clear of copyright concerns. -- G. Branden Robinson | It's not a matter of alienating Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to branden@debian.org | license their software however we http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature