On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:56:24 -0400, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
Please be cautious about reading GPL'd source code to understand the
protocol. It's possible to be in violation of the license based on
this.
As long as he doesn't copy the code, there's no violation. He can even
organize code better (or worse), e.g. use OOP, templates and/or ranges.
Isn't it copying if I retype exactly what I'm reading? If so, wouldn't it
be copying if I read code, then the code I write looks similar?
It may feel like not copying, and it may not be copying, but it's
sometimes (and I stress sometimes) difficult to prove that it's not
copying.
The easiest way to prove is not to read the code. Then any coincidental
similarities are provable coincidences. It shouldn't be too difficult.
The protocol spec should be nearly accurate (it technically should be 100%
accurate, seems like mysql doesn't keep it up well enough), so you just
have to fix any discrepancies. It sounds like Steve is already on the
right track.
If it comes down to it, someone can volunteer to help debug the code by
comparing it to the GPL'd library in areas where the spec seems to be
incorrect and completing the spec. I can help with this if you really
need it, I'd love to see native D support for MySQL, as it's my DB of
choice ;)
-Steve
