3 ms·
The cleanroom idea is a very good starting point. The famous example is the IBM bios the company reverse engineered. One of the execs had read the IBM spec, so
by lifeisstillgood 3y ago
The cleanroom idea is a very good starting point.
The famous example is the IBM bios the company reverse engineered.
One of the execs had read the IBM spec, so they "sealed off" a couple of other engineers who were not allowed to talk to (anyone? the guy who read the spec?)
And then this people used reverse engineering techniques to build a bios that did the same as the working one they had, but all they could see was electrical currents coming out of the pins etc.
So I think copyright law would allow you to look at a web page and, without viewing the source rebuild the page from scratch (ie box is red and 12 pixels wide)
The more interesting part is what happens if one person writes a 1,000 lines of open source licensed code, then another comes along and writes a different 800 lines replacing each of the original lines but with the same output.
That's much more a ship of theseus - but really it's a moot point - the second person would (have to?) release each new "plank" under an open source license.
So depending on the license I guess you can chnage the license by replacing all the original code with new code under a new license.
Hmm - I see ...
I think there is some implication here - that you could not (as easily?) build the new lines of code if you did not have the "scaffolding" of the original there - and I suspect that might be the way to argue the ship is still originally theseus ?
- jefftk 3y agoMore on Compaq's reverse engineering: https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp...
- jahewson 3y agoThe best answer is “it depends”. Almost any trick a layman can think of to work around a license is probably wrong. A mindless transliteration of those 800 lines is likely a derivative work, whereas a thoughtful re-creation likely isn’t. Copying an API for compatibility is regarded as a derived work but permitted as fair use (Oracle vs Google). There’s also the notion of de minimis copying were a very (very!) small portion of a work is regarded as insubstantial - maybe a line or two, again see Oracle vs Google.
- moffkalast 3y ago> And then this people used reverse engineering techniques to build a bios that did the same as the working one they had, but all they could see was electrical currents coming out of the pins etc. > So I think copyright law would allow you to look at a web page and, without viewing the source rebuild the page from scratch (ie box is red and 12 pixels wide) What I don't exactly see is, how the hell do you prove you didn't just rip off the original and pretended you never saw it? In fact if you knew what the original was it would be easier to use different methods that would otherwise likely be duplicated because people go for the obvious solution first.