Am Montag, den 27.06.2011, 23:09 +0200 schrieb Andreas Kotes: > Hello, > > * Marc-André Moreau <marcandre.mor...@gmail.com> [20110627 22:18]: > > I started using the tool. I'm using yesterday's version from git, and > > rdesktop revision 1505, which corresponds to the time at which we forked the > > project. > > > > I manually removed the git and svn hidden directories from the source trees. > > The documentation for the comparator mentions that the tool ignores cvs and > > svn history, but does not mention git, so you either ran the tool using > > 0.8.2, or the tool matched stuff found in the git history. Results are > > significantly different so far, but I need to spend more time understanding > > the tool and how I can filter the results. > > hate to be a party pooper, but this is (IMHO) clearly work you can avoid > doing, because whatever result you may come to won't make any line of > code more of a clean-room implementation than it currently is - because > in all cases during the development of that code intellectual property > of Cendio AB was present and available; This is a common misunderstanding.
At first : there is _no_ intellectual property. What we have ist copyright law , patent law and trademarks. patents and trademarks are of no interests. copyright law at least in europe, northamerica and japan protects the work computer program in our case. The law does protect programms in binary and text form. The law does _not_ protect ideas and concepts. Several programs can implement the same algorithms. As long as the implementation is different there is no problem. That the implenmtation is different can be shown by source code comparison. Clean room implementation is _not_ neccessary in order to create an independant and different implementation. A different point is that if an employee is doing a second implementation the employer might come up with claims like " my former employee has done the implementation using trade secrets". If you use trade secrets you are in trouble. So under cerain cicumstances it might be a good idea to do a clean room implementation even if copyright law does not require this. > giving (at least) the slimest > chance of lawyers, judges and jury _somewhere_ deciding that Cendio > holds rights, and can demand compensation. > > this is not gonna change easily. so: > > - accept staying with GPL (a viral Free Software license) (disliked) > > - reimplement most, if not all of it "clean room" (well .. no.) > > - get Cendio to (re-, sub-, dual-)license the code (tried, not > happening) > > .. but maybe ... > > - ask Cendio to sign a binding letter (i.e. binding current and future > management) to not press charges based on any IP residue so long as > any and all current and future code stays under a OSI compliant Open > Source license > > .. may be worth trying? > > Cheers, > > Andreas > -- Jürgen Lüters Von der Handelskammer Bremen öffentlich bestellter und vereidigter Sachverständiger fuer Systeme und Anwendungen der Informationsverarbeitung Intranet Engineering GmbH Fahrenheitstr. 1, D-28359 Bremen Tel: +49-421-2208-171 Handelsregister AG Schwerin HRB 7256 Geschäftsführer: Jürgen Lüters web: www.intranet-engineering.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
