Re: Copyright problems for the opensource reimplementation of a closed-source library (ITP #679504)
On 07/06/2012 01:22 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Christophe-Marie Duquesne <chmd@chmd.fr> writes:
>
>> I am the author of an opensource library that reimplements a
>> closed-source library.
> [...]
>> PS: the project in question is more a "proxy" towards the closed
>> source library than a real reimplementation, but technically I
>> actually reimplement every function of their header. If you are
>> interested, it is hosted here [2].
>
> If it is a proxy, then it is not a reimplementation. That you add a
> wrapper for every function, doesn't matter, you still call the original.
>
> If it would be a reimplementation, the best course of action would be to
> start with a program that uses the library, and reimplement the
> functionality based on what the program expects.
>
> If you base your work on existing headers, that's borderline derived
> work. If you proxy, that *is* derived work, and the whole excercise is
> rather pointless, as you will still be bound by the original
> license. That you dlopen() and not directly link, is irrelevant.
>
> (At least, that is my understanding of legalities, but as always, I'm
> not a lawyer.)
>
Also, just taking the proprietary header, kicking out all comments and
"elaborating" the macros is IMHO not acceptable since it's copyrighted
under a proprietary license. The only thing you *could* do is take the
publicly available documentation (if there is any) and re-write the
header based on that information.
IANAL etc....
Michael
Reply to: