Legal/Permission Question

[Derek Parnell]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:56:04 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>> Hey Walter/anyone?
>> 
>> Considering that my Walnut 2.x engine performs much the same functionality as DMDScript, but that Walnut 2.x is written significantly differently on a structural level...
>> 
>> DMDScript is a GPL v1 engine, and Walnut 2.x is a new BSD engine.
>> 
>> When I fill in the function stubs for, for example, Number_prototype_toFixed, am I allowed to examine Walter's DMDScript source code, write something similar (but obviously not the same) and still call it new BSD?
> 
> No. Doing so would make it a 'derivative work'.
> 
>> What requirements are there to do such a thing?
> 
> If you're going to clone a function, you can't use someone else's 
> copyrighted code as a guide. Even just looking at it could cause 
> 'taint', which is why I never look at or work on gcc.
> 
> You need to write your own from scratch - or buy a license <g>.

I have occasionally wondered about the situation in which one looks at code
"X" and thinks 'This is horrible. I can do better' and then goes on to
write "Y", which looks nothing like "X" but was developed with the
knowledge of "X". Now, if "X" and "Y" can be used interchangeably to solve
the same problem, is "Y" deemed to have been derived from "X"? 

In other words, is the motive of the author a factor? In the case above,
"X" and "Y" are totally dissimilar but "Y" was written /because/ the author
knew the details of "X". If the author did not know "X" but still wrote
"Y", could it be a derived work? 

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
4/04/2007 10:09:03 AM