Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Debian-installer, older hardware, boot loaders, miboot & amiboot & ..
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 06:42:50 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040328071614.GA22669@lambda> <20040329210548.GG4995@deadbeast.net> <email@example.com> <4068AFD1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20040330082721.GM10706@deadbeast.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <email@example.com>
>> 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
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.