April 15
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:18 PM, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 14 April 2017 at 16:31:24 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>
> Not a lawyer, but I think if you just port it to another language it is a
>> derived work in GPL and the ported project must also be GPL.
>>
>
> This is correct.
>
> However, if you're completely re-writing each function, I don't know.
>>
>
> I don't think that argument would apply in this case. It would be necessary to start a new project to give it an alternative license.
>

And more than that, companies that are serious about avoiding litigation will make sure that everyone working on this new project has not even seen the source code for the library with the other license.  If someone who has seen the source code provides help, it will only be in the form of advice, not code, to make sure there is no possible argument that the copyright of the original was violated.

--bb


6 days ago
On Saturday, 15 April 2017 at 20:20:01 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote:
> And more than that, companies that are serious about avoiding litigation will make sure that everyone working on this new project has not even seen the source code for the library with the other license.  If someone who has seen the source code provides help, it will only be in the form of advice, not code, to make sure there is no possible argument that the copyright of the original was violated.

In the case of BLAS, there is a reference implementation in Fortran which is free for commercial use. They only ask the authors to be credited.

http://www.netlib.org/blas/#_blas_routines

Of course, one should not look at other implementations...
Next ›   Last »
1 2