Legal/Permission Question

Brad Anderson brad at dsource.org
Tue Apr 3 18:16:58 PDT 2007


Derek Parnell wrote:
> 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? 
> 

Ain't lawyerin' grand?

BA



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list