On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:13:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:38:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > If the thing that is being reverse-engineered is covered by copyright, > > > and the reverse-engineering follows it tightly enough that the result > > > is a derivate of the original thing, then some kind of permission *is* > > > needed. > > I don't think your understanding of reverse-engineering is applicable in > > the U.S. > I thin you don't understand which kind of reverse engineering I'm > talking about. I'm afraid I am not able to be any clearer without > repeating myself. > > If you came by a functionally identical result through independent > > means (and clean-room reverse-engineering qualifies as such under > > U.S. court precedent), > Read my lips: I am *not* talking about "a *functionally* identical > result" or "clean rooms". I am talking about a deliberate (and quick) > reconstruction of assembler source for the excat bits that Apple has a > copyright on. It sounds like you're talking about decompiling, not reverse engineering. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature