On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:29:22PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Um, sorry for temporarily misplacing my temper here. I see now that I > have indeed expressed myself ambguously. I originally wrote something > like > > Before we begin a clean-room reimplementation, we should ask > Apple for permission to do foo. > > Most readers have understood that to mean "we cannot do a clean-room > reimplementation without permission to do foo", and tried to tell me > that this is wrong, which indeed it is. > > What I really meant was > > Doing foo is easier and safer than a clean-room reimplementation, > but would need permission from Apple. We should not begin > spending effort on a clean-room reimplementation until we have > reason to believe that Apple won't let us do foo instead. > > Does that make my subsequent comments clearer?
Thanks for the clarification. IMO we should do a clean-room implementation anyway. 1) Past experiences with Apple have not been very fruitful, just ask the Linux Mac68K hackers. 2) I disagree that disassembling the boot ROM is "safer". What's "safer" from a legal perspective is a clean-room reimplementation. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only [EMAIL PROTECTED] | outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
