On Wed, 17 May 2000, Mark Hatch wrote:
> I wonder (notice the language since I am not a intellectual property
> lawyer) whether this means:
>
> 1) You can look at Open Motif and as long as you don't plagiarize the code,
> you can work on other similar projects (i.e., lesstif). (This is like
> reading a technical book and using the understanding you gain to write some
> software.)
>
> 2) Just because the code was used with Open Motif, and in one instance is
> classified as a "Contribution", does not prevent it from being used in
> another piece of software covered under a different license.
I had a discussion with RMS some time ago about this problem. It was
related to GPL'ed code, but I think the general idea about copying code
"even paraphrasing it" applies. After this disscussion I started to think
twice before even *look* at GPL'ed code because of the virotic behavior of
the license:-
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 17 13:00:14 2000
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:49:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A question about "derived work"
Is not this a case of "look and feel" copyright?
No, that term refers to something completely different, in a situation
where the code is completely new and only the interface is similar.
We are opposed to interface copyright and we never claim copyright on
any interface.
I'm afraid that reading
some GNU code and imitating it's programming techniques may be in some way
considered "derived code" (GPL V.2, section 2b).
In general, if you copy the code--even paraphrasing it--that is
legally considered copying. But if you use just the ideas, writing
your own code, that is not legally considered copying.
This distinction is part of copyright law. So it applies regardless
of the license. It has nothing to do with the GPL *in particular*.
Sometimes it is hard to draw the line between the uncopyrightable
ideas and the copyrightable details.
The problem I see is that
although the license stands that "If identifiable sections of that work
are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered
That part of the GPL has nothing to do with this situation at all.
It applies to a totally different case. So I fear you may have
misunderstood it.
It is obviously the *same* function with some modifications, therefore a
derived work, but what can I do?
That is a difficult question.
The GNU code was so simple and good that
doing something different would be stupid! And there are not so many POSIX
and BSD compliant ways to test file permissions indeed.
Here is my understanding.
If there is really only one way to do the job, then you are legally
entitled to copy the code, I think. At least under US copyright law.
Whether there is really only one way to do this job, I don't know. (I
don't have time to spend looking for another.)
You may really want to ask a lawyer.
If you are just copying little pieces, maybe the copyright holder of
the GPL-covered code would give you permission to use that small
amount. So you could try asking.
--
Carlos A. M. dos Santos
Federal University of Pelotas Meteorological Research Center
Av. Ildefonso Simoes Lopes 2791 Pelotas, RS, Brasil, CEP 96060-290
WWW: http://www.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br RENPAC (X.25): 153231641
Phone: +55 53 277-6767 FAX: +55 53 277-6722
