Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!ucrmath!musial!rhyde
From: rhyde@musial.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Reusing Minix Source
Message-ID: <13838@ucrmath.ucr.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 91 16:22:29 GMT
References: <1991Apr8.174713.23684@doe.utoronto.ca> <41@ctcg.UUCP> <2410@tuvie.UUCP> <1991Apr24.132201.29077@cs.utk.edu>
Sender: news@ucrmath.ucr.edu
Reply-To: rhyde@musial.ucr.edu (randy hyde)
Lines: 27


>> You haven't much choice how to write them...
> There's only one way to do it...

Not True!  Sure, the interface has to be fairly consistent, but there
are lots of (different) ways to accomplish something and be original about it.

OTOH, I suspect your claim about "not even copying one line" is
unsupportable.  There are fair use clauses in literary copyrights (I'm
not sure if this applies to software) which allow this.  Furthermore, it
would be on PH to *prove* you copied that one line and it resulted in
damage of some sort or another to them.  I doubt they would push it that far.

I, for example, plan on rewriting the process manager in 32532 assembly
language
as soon as my copy of Minix arrives.  I will have no problem
distributing the sources.   Why?  Because I don't plan on acting like a
human compiler and translate the source line for line (which would make
it a derivative, still covered by the copyright).  I will study the
algorithms and data structures and then redesign the code using the
appropriate paradigm (i.e., assembly language rather than C).  Although
this would be a sticky point were Minix simply a commercial software
product (*I* would have to be ready to prove it wasn't a simple
derivation), I'm sure the courts wouldn't have any problem with my
releasing my code since the purpose of the textbook was to teach me how
to write an O/S and applying the information I got from the book is an
expected thing.