On 07/06/2012 01:22 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Christophe-Marie Duquesne <c...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff6d1f6.80...@users.sourceforge.net
