On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Casey Marshall wrote: > On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:47 AM, Audrius Meskauskas wrote: > >> Maybe one person can look into that code, write the brief draft of >> the documentation and then another can implement it using that >> documentation only? This would be the possibility to work with >> formats for that there is no other specification available apart >> from the released piece of the implementing code. >> > > That is, in fact, what the documentation comments for that class > do, which are rendered here: <http://metastatic.org/source/ > JKS.html>. This is a simple, English description of the format, and > I don't think (but, not-a-lawyer, yadda yadda) if someone were to > use this to construct their own implementation, "they would not be tainted," :-P > even if this description was obtained through reverse engineering. > > I mean, as far as the *idea* of that format goes: > > - No-one can claim it's a trade secret, because Sun licenses the > source to third parties. > - No-one can make a copyright claim, because it's a simple > English description of an algorithm, not Sun's code itself. > - This format is unlikely to be patented. > > So, if I reverse-engineer this format, then write a simple document > describing the format and give that description to someone else, > the question is how "tainted" that person is. I don't think here in > the US this taints the other person much at all. Do any other > jurisdictions (of which the present company is a resident) have > lenient enough laws such that using this description to write a new > implementation doesn't taint them? > >
