Looking at someone else's code and then writing your own version is a no-no.
However, there's a legal way to deal with it. Clean-room reverse engineering. Here's an example of how it was done with wireless driver support for linux -- good overview of the proper process. http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/ReverseEngineeringProcess Werner can write specs of how it should work (which it sounds like he has already done). Just be careful not to say how to implement the behavior. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jan-Kees van Andel<[email protected]> wrote: > +1. Same opinion as Michael. > > 2009/9/3 Michael Concini <[email protected]>: >> +1. Better to be safe than sorry here in my opinion. >> >> Matthias Wessendorf wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Curtiss Howard<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> an interesting note from the Apache Harmony project, we got on legal@: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> Harmony, OTOH, says that they have been extremely cautious and have >>>>> not allowed any developer to work on any part which they have >>>>> previously been exposed to. This is largely precautionary beyond >>>>> necessity. >>>>> </snip> >>>>> >>>>> perhaps we should also ensure a policy like that ?! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1. I can't speak for everyone, but that is definitely how my company >>>> operates. IANAL, but I've been lectured by several and my concern is >>>> that if MyFaces developers take the attitude that "seeing how the RI >>>> does it" isn't a big deal then my role on this project may be in >>>> jeopardy because I won't know if I've been inadvertantly exposed to a >>>> "copy-but-not-really-a-copy-and-paste" of Sun code and it could expose >>>> my company to all sorts of unforeseen legal implications. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I know it seems silly to be so paranoid about code that's available >>>> "freely", but the reality is that MyFaces is shipped in commercial >>>> products and it would be unethical to leave those products vulnerable >>>> to legal attack because they may be violating Sun's IP unknowingly. >>>> There is precedent here... remember SCO? >>>> >>> >>> unfortunately yes... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> So, in this case I strongly suggest that MyFaces contributors follow >>>> the advice of the legal lowest common denominator (or in this case >>>> perhaps it's the greatest common denominator :D) and not look at RI >>>> code AT ALL. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Apache had a (similar) issue in the past. JBoss sent a *letter* to Apache, >>> as they thought some code from JBoss container was looking >>> identically... [1] >>> Sure we aren't about copying code here, but I attach this _resource_ >>> more as an FYI. >>> >>> -Matthias >>> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/5v6kuqp7rgmn35fo >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> Curtiss Howard >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
