Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 06:42:50 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] c4oor9$tav$1@sea.gmane.org>
- References: <20040328071614.GA22669@lambda> <20040329210548.GG4995@deadbeast.net> <87ekrbgt8i.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> <4068AFD1.30609@sms.ed.ac.uk> <87n05zfbhi.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> <20040330082721.GM10706@deadbeast.net> <87smfql7oe.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net>
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
>
>> There's absolutely no point even implying that we need their permission
>> to reverse engineer anything,
>
> If we are going to distribute code that has been derived by reverse
> engineering, then we do need permission from the original copyright
> holder.
Only if it's actually a derivative work. If it's done by the "Chinese Wall"
a.k.a "Clean Room" method, it's not, as has been explained before.
That requires one person examining the boot block and making a specification
(without any binary details) for what a boot block needs to do, and a
*different* person reading the specification and writing a brand new boot
block from it.
>It's not the "reverse engineering" that needs permission; it's
> the "distribute derived code".
>
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: