FWIW, my assumption has been that translation from one programming
language to another might not suffice to disconnect the link to the
original (GPL'd) work.
But we're off-topic (and hypothetical) by now.
Greg Stein wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:31:36 -0400:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:24, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >> [ Haven't read the whole thread yet, quick response only to this sentence ]
> >> Peter Samuelson wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:11:45 -0500:
> >>> This is why you should read the existing third-party implementations.
> >> I believe some third-party implementations are GPL'd --- meaning that we
> >> can't borrow code from them --- so one should be careful in what parts
> >> of what implementations one chooses to read.
> > We certainly can't copy / paste code, but borrowing algorithms,
> > techniques, patterns or ideas is perfectly valid. GPL governs
> > copyright of the code, not the ideas contained therein. (For
> > instance, reimplementing something from a GPL'd Python program to a
> > ALv2'd C program would be perfectly valid.)
> > -Hyrum
> > PS - IANAL and could be way off base here. If I am, and even
> > *reading* GPL code somehow makes you ineligible to contribute to
> > ALv2-licensed code, then the GPL is even goofier than I thought.
> IMO, your interpretation is quite correct.
Received on 2011-06-29 14:26:16 CEST