Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright, > > and the reverse-engineering follows it tightly enough that the result > > is a derivate of the original thing, then some kind of permission *is* > > needed. > I don't think your understanding of reverse-engineering is applicable in > the U.S. I thin you don't understand which kind of reverse engineering I'm talking about. I'm afraid I am not able to be any clearer without repeating myself. > If you came by a functionally identical result through independent > means (and clean-room reverse-engineering qualifies as such under > U.S. court precedent), Read my lips: I am *not* talking about "a *functionally* identical result" or "clean rooms". I am talking about a deliberate (and quick) reconstruction of assembler source for the excat bits that Apple has a copyright on. -- Henning Makholm "The bread says TOAAAAAST." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
