Re: Question about Cocoa/Gnustep

[red]

Thanks a lot,

    is this also true for the non published or 'hidden' API, like SPI in
Apple language ?



"Gregory John Casamento" <greg_casamento@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message
de news:mailman.1218.1082730640.1061.discuss-gnustep@gnu.org...
> --- CM <c.mench@adilinstruments.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> >
> >     I've just one question. OpenStep specification is open and
> > Gnustep implements it. What about all modifications that Apple
> > made afterwards for Cocoa, can they legally be integrated in
> > Gnustep, or is Gnustep condamned to diverge because it would
> > not be allowed to add the new NS* cocoa classes ?
> >
> >     best regards.
>
> There is much precedent in both US and European court decisions which
state
> that an API (like Cocoa, Win32, DOS, etc, etc) cannot be copyrighted.  A
> specific implementation of it can, but not the API itself.   What this
means is
> that any API published by any company can be legally implemented by
someone
> else provided that the implementation is an original one.
>
> For instance, Digital Research created a DOS clone called DR-DOS without
any
> kind of license from MS, because none was necessary (due to the
aforementioned
> precedents).  FreeDOS also did the same thing with DOS as does Wine with
the
> Win32 API, and OpenBEOS with BeOS and AROS with AmigaOS, etc, etc, etc.
>
> The answer to your question is that GNUstep is legally free to implement
any
> and all APIs published by Apple just as other projects (FreeDOS and Wine,
et
> al.) are free to implement any and all APIs published by the respective
> companies whose operating systems they are cloning, even though such APIs
were
> never published as an 'open' specification.
>
> Thanks, GJC
>
> =====
> Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
>
>