Re: Corel's apt frontend
Jeff Teunissen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> No, my examples seem to be precisely what you are talking about. Corel's
> tool, using libapt, is using dpkg's command-line interface, in the same
> way an IDE calls a C compiler's command-line interface. The only real
> difference is in the results; gcc compiles code, dpkg unpacks and
> installs packages, as well as provides helpful information for programs
> and people to use.
What Raul seems to be getting at is that dpkg is presently the only
existing implementation og the command-line interface in question.
His arguments apparently lead to a general principle: if, for some
protocol (a command line interface is a particular example of a
protocol, but one of the basic premises of the argument is that
such technical differences are irrelevant) there is only one existing
implementation of one side of the protocol, then every implementation
of the *other* side of the protocol automatically becomes deriviate
of the implementation of the first side.
I don't think copyright law acknowledges such a principle.
Henning Makholm "Det må være spændende at bo på en kugle. Har I nogen
side besøgt de egne, hvor folk går rundt med hovedet nedad?"