Arnaud Bergeron wrote:
For example, if you have a function that takes a string argument and
reverse the characters in it under GPL. You take what it does
(reverse character in a string) and re-implement it with your own
code. You can keep the same interface to the function (meaning name
and parameters) as long as you impelment the functionality yourself.
That's good to know. Exact same functions name and parameters can stay
as is as long as content is different. So, that's one thing clear now.
As for data structures, I am not certain but I tend to agree with Ted
meaning they are not copyrightable and you can copy them. (I know I
did with some)
But can it really? Someone could argue that the structure is part of the
intellectual property of that design and as such is under GNU. Doesn't
mean two different users in two part of the world can't come up with the
exact same structure because it make sense, but again, is it proper to
do so? Can it really be that the exact same structure use keep the same
name, variable types, order, etc. And then use by different function or
implementations and then be OK to use and NOT step over the right of the
original author(s) then by doing so?
Inspired means you see a good idea and you do the same general idea
without using the exact same lines of code.
Thanks, that's two clear answer now.
It means that a file with only #include statements is hardly
copyrightable and can be copied at will.
Can it really? I guess if in the end you make it KNF compliant and the
order of the various includes are changed, but are the exact same name,
including names form the original project, it's OK?
If so, that would be the third rules then.
Also file names are not copyrightable and you are not requiered to use
new names. The copyright (and consequently the license) applies to
the code and only the code.
That would be the forth one at this time.
Don't worry this topic has not even been approched yet, and I intend
to keep it that way.
Thank you!!!
In your case it is not really changing a GNU project to a BSD one but
rather rewriting a GNU one under a BSD license. Correct me if i'm
wrong.
Yes and making it a drop replacement as it is process along the way, AND
keep fully compatibility with third party modules, so meaning obviously
it can't be fully BSD until the last files is replace, but part of it
are replace by BSD files and code as it is progressing however. But
keeping the line between the right of the authors and the replacement
BSD version.
That's what I am struggling with.
Obviously if no one would care about licenses, it wouldn't be a
question, but that's wrong. How to proceed to the end goal and
respecting the original Author wishes and license of choice AND make the
transition to a BSD final version.
Thanks.
