On 4/26/2012 4:19 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 4/26/12 10:30 AM, "olegsivo...@gmail.com"<olegsivo...@gmail.com> wrote:
But there's published documentation with precise description of what the
API do - why copying that would be a reverse engineering? It's like if I
wanted to write a driver for NVidia adapter - there's no way I would avoid
copying all the same API they have in the hardware, and, eventually it
would have all the same interface as the NVidia proprietary drivers. That's
not stealing from NVidia (in the case outlined above), it's just creating
an alternative, which cannot vary from the original because of what it does.
I'm not a lawyer, and I've been surprised by how some of this legal stuff
works. Above you used the word "copy" which I believe the legal term
"Copyright" is meant to limit.
The purpose of Copyright is [and I'll quote Wikiepdia] "to promote the
creation of new works by giving authors control of and profit from them".
Copyright was intended to encourage authors/artists create new stuff.
"Big Media" lobbying and lawyers are doing their best to change that,
though.
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
203-379-0773
--
http://www.flextras.com?c=104
UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
--
http://www.theflexshow.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
http://www.asktheflexpert.com
--
Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
