Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!utkcs2!nall
From: nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Reusing Minix Source (was: Re: Redistributing Minix command source)
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.132201.29077@cs.utk.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 13:22:01 GMT
References: <1991Apr8.174713.23684@doe.utoronto.ca> <41@ctcg.UUCP> <2410@tuvie.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@cs.utk.edu (USENET News Poster)
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Lines: 42

In article <2410@tuvie.UUCP> hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Holzer) writes:

>If I wanted to write an OS of my own (no, I am not seriously 
>considering it), could I use parts of Minix (e.g. device drivers), 
>change them to fit my OS, and still make my OS public domain?
>Or would I have to rewrite everything myself? I guess for most device
>drivers the only parts that would remain unchanged are the ones which
>actually ontrol the device and you haven't much choice how write them
>anyway. All the algorithms used in Minix are also described in The
>Book, and if I implemented them after the text that would be ok (I hope
>nobody has patented them yet :-), so why can't I just copy parts of the
>code?.

While I have no idea of how copyright is implemented outside of the US,
within the US it means you can't copy the item.  So you would not be able
to copy parts of Minix - technically, not even one line.  On the other hand,
you could read the book carefully, study the source carefully, and then come
up with your own O/S.  The problem would be, however, in proving that you did
NOT copy it, since, as you state, there is basically only one way to do it.

Those people who have successfully done such things in the commercial 
software market have gotten around this by making sure that the people who
write the code not only do not look at the original, but can PROVE that they
have not (I'm not sure how they prove that).  The classic, of course, is the
guy who not only copies code, but even uses (a) original comments, and (b)
parts of the original code which serve no use and should not even be in the
original, and then attempts to claim he never looked at the original!

So far as algorithms go, my understanding is that you CAN't patent them.
But of course you can copyright a particular implementation of one.

BTW, on all the above I'm talking about doing something for commercial
purposes.  Fair use doctrine and all that stuff covers the type of stuff
99% of us do.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nall, Comp. Sci. Dept. | "MY Personal Best?  Oh, let me think a moment. 
Univ of Tenn at Knoxville   |  I think perhaps the time I read the entire
nall@cs.utk.edu             |   set of Travis McGee books over a weekend."