On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:52 AM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14-10-17 08:52 AM, lkcl . wrote: > > the reverse-engineering was at several different levels: > > > I think your missing a key point, which is that you reverse-engineered, > which is exactly exempt:
you are correct in that the reverse-engineering *itself* is irrelevant. however if it is an *API* that has been reverse-engineered and that API is considered to be *copyright material*. please ignore the fact that the material derived has been reverse-engineered in samba, wine and many other software libre applications. there is no link to reverse-engineering. it is the fact that the APIs which *have* been implemented [by a means and method that ****HAPPENS***** to be reverse-engineering] are, through this dangerous precedent that will be used in case-law to make ****ALL***** APIs copyrighted material, that is the most dangerous concern. is that clear where your confusion lies? is that clear enough now exactly what the issue is? l.
