> The bottom line here, for this paragraph, is that if you don't like the > license terms, you are perfectly free to write your own version of the > wheel, just do it in a clean room, you cannot have ever seen a copy of that > source code. If, OTOH, you are not capable of doing that, and the only way > to get the job done is to use something that has a license that is > distasteful to you, then you should retrain your taste buds and comply with > the terms. The license & copyright notices the author chooses to put on > his output ARE what he/she puts on it and you have zero rights to decide > otherwise. >
In Canada, at least, the above is not quite true. I don't know about elsewhere, but we are fortunate to still have protections for educational use, so I definitely can learn from other peoples code, regardless of license, and then re-implement it myself. Where the line is between copying and re-implementing based on education is for the courts to decide, but just thought i should point out that 'never having seen the source code' would only be an issue IFF the infringement was already judged to be copying. By which I meant to say, if copying is determined to be infringing. IE, it doesn't matter that a bebop contrafact is obviously a copy, because copyright law already states that chord progressions aren't copyrightable. iain Iain
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev