Re: Question about Cocoa/Gnustep

[Graham J Lee]

On 2004-04-25 14:25:10 +0100 Gregory John Casamento 
<greg_casamento@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > What about header files? API is mostly defined in header files and 
> > it is 
> > inevitable that header files would look similiar from implementation 
> > to 
> > implementation. Is it possible if, suppose i'm developing my own 
> > another 
> > OpenStep impl., I legally copy apple's header file and modify them?
>
> Don't do that.   It's certainly illegal to do a *straight* copy.   
> The headers
> in GNUstep have been created by utilizing the documentation in the 
> spec and
> other Cocoa documentation as a reference.
>
> > It is certainly illegal if i declare the fact that I copied apple's 
> > header 
> > files but what is the guideline to determine wether it is a copy of 
> > their 
> > product or not?
>
> It's certainly illegal if you do a verbatim copy, that is to simply 
> "cp
> someheader.h anothername.h" or something like that.   I can't stress 
> enough
> that no direct copying should be done.

[...]

> Header files, in cases where no other documentation is available, can 
> also be
> viewed as documentation since they reveal the interface, but none of 
> the
> implementation.   But, please, DO NOT COPY ANY HEADERS INTO GNUSTEP.

Exactly.  That's what some of the kerfuffle over the SCO/Linux thing 
was about: SCO maintained that Linus' 0.01 release of errno.h was a 
verbatim copy of the SysV errno.h and hence *illegal*.  Now, I am not 
a paralegal, but thankfully groklaw is run by one so we can defer to 
groklaw :-).
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040221192536920

Note that whether or not the specific case considered here is 
infringing, the general point seems the same: a header file is part of 
the *implementation* of a system even if the content is described in 
some open standard.  So Gregory is correct; other people's header 
files should not be copied into GNUstep.

Cheers,

Graham.
--
Graham Lee
Wadham College
OX1 3PN