|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
>Does that sound realistic?
Yes, it's quite realistic when you consider that it's already been done *TWICE*
for older version of windows:
http://www.winehq.org
http://www.reactos.org
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
What you're describing is (almost) exactly the way a clean-room implementation
works. See, for example, the Phoenix BIOS. See, for example, WINE. See, for
example, SAMBA.
This has a long history of being fair game.
The "not exactly" part is that it doesn't come from stolen (or leaked)
source code. SAMBA comes from very careful inspection of what Microsoft sends
across the wire. The Phoenix BIOS came from one team very carefully documenting
exactly what the IBM BIOS did, and a second team implementing something that
exactly met that specification.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 01:16 AM EDT |
So, when has Sun or Oracle offered such a license? Which
license we talking about here?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
There are two express intents,
Enable Java programmers to program in Java
To enable third parties to implement the Java API Specification
The legal task is to determine whether those clearly expressed intents can be
limited by the licence in the way Sun/Oracle want and if their is any law that
allows them to enforce those wishes.
Sun/Oracle say that they can restrict the scope of those two express intents by
using copyright law.
PJ explains in the story why they cannot.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
Neither of which anyone contests are remotely infringing on copyright.
Something definitely crawled out from under the bridge, OP is just so far beyond
wide of the mark that it can only be wilful.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
Just completely off the top of my head this is arguing the reverse of the
finding in Sega v. Accolade, IIRC. Sega tried to set up a scheme to make only
Sega-licensed games play on their console, competitor disassembled the console's
ROM to figure out what was going on, wrote a specification for compatibility,
then had another programmer actually implement the compatibility. Clean room
implementation, protected reverse engineering.
That said, it's been over a decade since I looked into that so forgive me if my
memory's a little off on the details...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
The license for JAVA is GPL. The PAID license is only to certify that the
implementation can use the JAVA brand. If I do a clean room implementation and
call it something else and don't pay the license. I can still use my product
and encourage others to also but I can't use the JAVA brand for any of this.
Sun did this for a very good reason, JAVA needs to be able to meet it's design
to write once run anywhere and can't if the brand can be diluted the way that MS
tried to do with their implementation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
