On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 04:42:00PM -0400, Mike wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > >Usually the advice is to write your own code based on descriptive > >information about the protocol, without looking at the original > >implementation. In other words, use the RFC, not the code. > >This avoids accusations about nonliteral copying. > > Too bad it's a closed source protocol. But I will give reverse > engineering it a try it might be interesting. It's a tiny protocol I > might just be able to figure it out. There might even be some unofficial > docs on the web somewhere. The best way to break derivation for stuff like this is to reverse-engineer it and write a description of the protocol. Then implement your own version using *only* the description. Never touch both at once. To be really robust, you must have different people doing the two parts, but even with only one, following the discipline gives you a solid defence against accusations of copying. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature