[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SWING at OJE
From: |
Andrew Selkirk |
Subject: |
RE: SWING at OJE |
Date: |
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:50:38 -0500 |
Hi,
>===== Original Message From "Nic Ferrier" <address@hidden>
=====
>>Yes, reverse-engineering is permitted in most countries
>>with sane laws. However, I don't think you can claim
>>that you're making a clean-room implementation at the
>>same time, unless you're deploying some kind of
>>double-blind scheme.
>
>I don't think what Andrew's doing could be illegal in anyway. As far
>as I udnerstand it he's simple generating the stubs of the files from
>the public java docs.
>
>I'm not aware of any legal restriction of parsing text in copyrighted
>material.
Rolf is correct in my mis-use of the term clean-room I believe.
What I'm creating is an implementation of Swing, but not a
clean-room version. I've done some reading this afternoon and
apparently, in order to properly create a clean room piece of
software, you need one team who writes a specification on the
copyrightable elements of the existing software, and another team
which writes the new version based on that specification. Also,
the implementation team must never had access to the original
software; ie. if you every used Swing, you can't write a
clean-room version (that is if, from this argument, that Swing
is a copyrightable element).
Do I have this right?
Andrew...
address@hidden
- Re: SWING at OJE, (continued)
Re: SWING at OJE, Nic Ferrier, 2001/02/05
RE: SWING at OJE, Andrew Selkirk, 2001/02/05
Re: SWING at OJE, Nic Ferrier, 2001/02/05
Re: SWING at OJE, Nic Ferrier, 2001/02/05
Re: SWING at OJE, Nic Ferrier, 2001/02/05
RE: SWING at OJE,
Andrew Selkirk <=
RE: SWING at OJE, Nic Ferrier, 2001/02/05
Re: SWING at OJE, Nic Ferrier, 2001/02/05