| Re: IDL, GDL, copyright, EULAs and such [message #44758 is a reply to message #44694] |
Thu, 14 July 2005 13:12   |
Michael Wallace
Messages: 409
Registered: December 2003
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> As how plots get drawn:
> GDL uses the plplot library here (which IDL cannot use as it is under
> the GPL). Definitely as far away from reverse engineering (RE) as it
> gets.
I was just using plotting as an example. I wasn't commenting on GDL or
anything else that has a plot feature. I was attempting to say that if
you created a program that mimicked IDL plotting *exactly*, down to the
position of every last pixel, that might fall under the "reverse
engineering" banner in the EULA.
> For me that RE stuff is way overstretched.
I agree. But it is amazing what some companies will try to do to you
with the claim that you reverse engineered something of theirs when it's
actually a completely new implementation. There have been way too many
frivolous lawsuits on stuff like that.
> If just doing something similar would be illegal RE: What about .net
> and mono? What about M$ Office and Openoffice? Unix and Linux? The GNU
> command line programs?...
Doing something *similar* isn't reverse engineering. But doing
something that looks *identical* to something else could be called
reverse engineering. Here, I'm only speaking of large, complicated
programs that a company would sell, or at least contain a restrictive EULA.
> AFAIK a programming language itself cannot be protected anyway. There
> are loads of examples of compilers/interpreters for several proprietary
> languages. Most popular probably Java. Anotherone popular is Octave.
A programming language itself can't be protected because a programming
language is a specification rather than an actual product. You don't
sell the specification; you sell the compiler or interpreter of the
language.
All I was attempting to say with my original comment about "reverse
engineering" is that some companies will attempt to stretch that
definition to cover independent works which behave identically to their
own product. While I do not agree with this definition, it is something
that happens from time to time in the business world and we should be
aware of it, especially if we are creating a product similar to one that
already exists. If all your ducks are in a row, then it should be no
problem whatsoever. I just wanted to add that word of caution to those
asking the original questions regarding what makes certain software
legal or illegal. I was only using GDL as an example; I wasn't trying
to say or imply that GDL, either in part or on the whole, was a reverse
engineered product.
-Mike
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
