Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way.

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

I've looked into this and I think if you dig into you'll find that this
stuff is all claused in "if they don't provide the API's to interoperate".

It's a moot point anyway because by the time anyone has come anywhere near
to reverse engineering what we do today we'll be years beyond that.  In 
some ways, that's fine, either we keep moving or die.  I can live with that.
On the other hand, I'm not about to hand our IP out on a silver platter.
Be legal or be in court...

On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 04:52:46AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> > > This is  exactly the  same. As  long as there  is a  data format  or a
> > > protocol involved,  European laws allow users to  reverse engineer it,
> > > to  be  able to  create  another program  using  the  same format  and
> > > protocols. 
> > 
> > Really?  Show me that law please.
> 
> IANAL, but check the "German Gesetz ?ber Urheberrecht und verwandte
> Schutzrechte" (Urheberrechtsgesetz/UrhG for short), ?? 69c, 69d, 69e.
> http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html
> 
> It concerns itself with "interoperability" of independently developed
> programs with an existing one that you may use, (not with clones though,
> the law formulates this differently); decompilation is allowed, unless
> information needed to obtain interoperability is available, and there
> are other restrictions.  License or contract clauses that attempt to run
> counter to ?69d 2,3 (backup copies to ensure future use) or ?69e
> (decompilation) are void.
> 
> Anyone interested should check out the exact words of the law though,
> and in particular he should not rely on my translation.

-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm