I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not
in specifics, at least in results and effects. The FSF, to the extent I
was able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking
GPL'ed API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation,
and slapping any old licence on the result. (Might be the ASL, or might
not.)
To emphasize: they don't just say it's ok, but actually encourage this.
I read a bit of the pdf:
"For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that
Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL
libraries until
I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse
engineering."
The FSF itself, in form of a quote from Dr. Stallman, endorses this:
"We oppose interface copyright and have always opposed it. I founded an
organization in 1990, the League for Programming Freedom, to fight
against user interface copyright, but we oppose API copyright just the
same."
-Dr. Stallman
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.gpl.violations.legal/4370
So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and
reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the
door on this. If necessary, I'm sure they'll put something about this
in GPL v4.
The point is that there's no need to reverse engineer, there's a much
simpler approach, which is less expensive: Java is just one example of
which has been copied without the need for reverse engineering at all.
Reverse engineering GPL'ed software is beside the point.
-Thufir
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
