Re: implementing reiserfs in C++ for a new OS

[mjt@nysv.org]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:16:19PM +0100, Chris Dukes wrote:

>> Otherwise harry potter can get translated and no need to pay rowling.
>
>Not entirely.  Such a translation would be deemed a derivative work.
>The copyright on the translated version belongs to the translator
>(Unless the translator did it for pay).  However, distribution of that

Unless the translator did it for pay AND signed a waiver that he loses
the copyright for the translation.

>derivative work may be controlled by copyright holder of the work
>the translation was derived from (IE, rowling wouldn't be able to distribute
>the translation, but may be able to prevent the distribution of the
>translation).

Yes.

>If they intend to do direct translation it's a derivative work.
>Copyright belongs to them, right to distribute is limited to the terms
>of the license they were under when they did the translation.

Are computer languages really seen as translations?
I'd like to hear a lawyer's opinion on this matter.

I see those "translations" as reimplementations.

>If they intend to reverse engineer, you could go after them through
>the aid of DMCAish legislation on the books, but you'll also do a good
>job of convincing everyone that you're an asshole.

Reverse-engineering open source is not that difficult, hardly should
be called reverse-engineering.

Finnish law grants you the right to reverse-engineer in order to see
how the computer program works and "compile/change/translate the
shape/form/style of the code" (damn, I'd hate to be a legal translator)

You can do this as long as it's for finding out how a program works.
There are some restraints on what you can do with the reverse-engineered
code, though, but they all revolve around using the code for compatibility
reasons.

So if the implementation of ReiserFS is compatible with Namesys' ReiserFS,
it'd be good in Finland.

Not that this has to be true everywhere else, but I think most of this
stuff is international.

-- 
mjt