[License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[lkcl .]

[top-posting by way of preamble, apologies to others receiving this:
thufir is someone whom i have interacted with in the past without
achieving successful rational communication, on the gpl-violations
mailing list]

ah, thufir, after a long time, you initiate a discussion (directly to
me) for which i have no context.  but i do recall distinctly that i
had given up communicating with you because, from the previous
conversations i deemed that you were unable to follow lengthy rational
arguments, and, furthermore, that you had the unfortunate (and very
common) psychological flaw of assuming personal affront and insult
when presented even with rational and objective criticism.

as there has been a long period since the last public conversations, i
will give you the benefit of the doubt - once and only once - that you
have since fixed these flaws in the way that you interact with others
on the internet, but if i see even one indication that you have not
you, i simply will not respond further.  at all.  i trust that this is
clear, and i apologise for taking up everyone else's time with this
lengthy preamble.


On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:30 PM, thufir <hawat.thufir at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not in
> specifics, at least in results and effects.

 as i have no context for these discussions, i performed a search on a
specific phrase and noted this:

    https://github.com/dtag-dbu/oslic/blob/master/articles/oslic-reveng.tex

 i assume therefore that the PDF being discussed was generated from
that latex source, and i assume also that my input is being solicited.

 i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that
if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of
them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary
lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copyrighting of
APIs, that the issue of why copyrighting of APIs is extremely bad for
the entire software industry and is a GENERAL PROBLEM NOT SPECIFIC TO
THE GPL.

i further assume that this is something that you now understand and
accept, but if you do not, please do not ask me to explain it: i do
not have time to explain what 77 experts in their field all agree on
but that you have demonstrated in the past that you do not.   in case
you have not read that amicus brief of six months ago here is a copy:
   https://www.eff.org/files/2014/11/07/google_v_oracle_computer-scientists-certpetition-amicus-brief_14-410_final.pdf



> The FSF, to the extent I was
> able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking GPL'ed
> API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation, and
> slapping any old licence on the result. (Might be the ASL, or might not.)
>
> To emphasize:  they don't just say it's ok, but actually encourage this.

 that is because it actually has nothing to do with the GPL, nor with
the FSF.  it could be any software license, and it could be any
organisation, individual or corporation.  the only reason why the FSF
is speaking up is because they are supporting the principle concept of
software freedom *in general*.

 most organisations and especially corporations do not speak up, even
if they know that copyrighting of APIs is a serious problem, because
they have decided that it is neither their vocation or in their best
[usually financial or other short-term] interests to do so.


> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.gpl.violations.legal/4370
>
>
> So, that's the point.  You might write what you like about the GPL and
> reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door
> on this.

 no it has not.  from previous experience, you have a habit of being
unable to discern between correlation and causation, and have shown a
tendency to not be able to follow logical chains of reasoning.  i
believe you are making a similar mistake here, by using the phrase
"has opened the door on this" in assuming that the development and
release of the GPL is solely and exclusively responsible for why
reverse-engineering is permitted.

l.