3 ms·
Assuming I understand what you mean by "people", then this comment sounds completely correct and contradicts your last comment. Your last comment said person B
by Dylan16807 8d ago
Assuming I understand what you mean by "people", then this comment sounds completely correct and contradicts your last comment.
Your last comment said person B could be sued for copyright infringement. But the essence of clean-room is that person B "hasn't seen the original work which means there can be no discussion of copying".
Person A is not giving the original documents to person B, they only give functional details.
One of your earlier comments had a vague description of clean-room that wasn't clear on this aspect. But you were responding to someone that gave a clear and correct definition, so I assumed you were also using the actual definition.
If you've actually been talking about fake not-really-clean-room then sure someone could get sued. But that's obvious. The suggestion by alightsoul was actual clean-room.
- danielheath 7d agoArguing in court over whether the details in question were functional or copyright is time-consuming (thus expensive), and risky. Once it's established that person A has given _any_ details to person B, the upper bound on "expected cost of an effective defense" is dramatically higher.
- Dylan16807 7d ago> Once it's established that person A has given _any_ details to person B, the upper bound on "expected cost of an effective defense" is dramatically higher. Yeah but that's what clean room is. You said "A clean room implementation by people who haven’t seen the original work means there can be no discussion of copying, which makes it much cheaper and more reliable to fight an infringement claim." Something doesn't add up. If you were thinking about a situation where the developers don't get the original work, and nobody feeds them info based on the original work either, that's not clean room, that's something much harder.