What I said is a disjunction of what happened in OS X 10.8 and 10.9 regarding location of symbols in binaries - you should know that OS X 10.8 is already published for months, and this change actually happened in OS X 10.7.
(Did I say that something interesting happened too? If I say anything more than that then the NDA will bite me.) Sent from my iPhone > On 2013年6月19日, at 22:33, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maxthon, > > Please do not post information that is either under NDA or which has been > obtained via reverse engineering methods. While reverse engineering might > be legal in some countries it is not legal in all countries. > > Graham is correct in what he said. The FSF acknowledges and respects > intellectual property rights. By ignoring these rules you are jeopardizing > the project. Please respect the rules we have laid down for you here > regarding the posting of such information to this list. > > I am the list moderator, I have flagged your subscription for moderation. > This doesn't mean you've been removed from the list, it simply means that > your posts will be forwarded to the list after review by me at my discretion. > > Thanks, > Gregory > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Graham Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to reinvent it. From >> "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism" >> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html): >> >> > Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end >> > proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link >> > them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's >> > requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the >> > requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C >> > front end free software. >> >> The Free Software community has got where it is today by acknowledging the >> complex system of intellectual property protection as it exists, and using >> it in novel ways in order to extend freedoms to the users of its software. >> This has been done, as we see in the example above, by respecting and >> working with the legal systems in place, not by ignoring them or proclaiming >> that they do not apply. Sometimes it means that things we might want to do >> such as reverse engineering proprietary software should not be done. Other >> times it means that things other people might want to do such as >> incorporating free software into proprietary products should not be done. So >> there are sometimes downsides, and sometimes benefits: either way there is a >> clear set of values in play that lead to this game having certain rules. >> >> You are, in ignoring these rules, ignoring the values that many of the >> people on this list share with the organisation that "owns", in its way, the >> GNUstep project. It is not a surprise that these people are, as a result, >> asking you to avoid repeating your mistakes or even calling for you to be >> removed from the mailing list. Please consider this. >> >> Thanks, >> Graham. >> >> On 19 Jun 2013, at 14:18, Maxthon Chan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Given that: >> > >> > 1) Apple did not patent Cocoa and/or their implementation of >> > CoreFoundation, and >> > 2) GNUstep contains no Apple code >> > >> > We will be good, as Apple have no reason to drag us into trouble. We are >> > not infringing any IP at all if that two conditions is met. >> > >> > Just look at Mono which is a binary-compatible reimplementation of >> > Microsoft .net and they did not complain (and even eventually advertising >> > it to some extent). >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> >> On 2013年6月19日, at 21:05, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> Why do you want to transform GNUstep into something else ? >> >> Why do you want to implement exactly the same way it's done by Apple ? >> >> Maybe you are excited to discover technical details and I completely >> >> understand that but >> >> your discoveries won't be implemented. >> >> What you are trying to do I have already followed that path by trying to >> >> implement CoreGraphics >> >> using reverse engineering and CFLite and it was fun to do but at the end >> >> it was useless for >> >> legal reasons among other things. >> >> I should have participated to GNUstep instead of loosing too much time on >> >> this project. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Gnustep-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gnustep-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnustep-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > > > > -- > Gregory Casamento > Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant > yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa > (240)274-9630 (Cell) > http://www.gnustep.org > http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
