71–74 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was already trying to sell it, starting at $25/mo. http://contribsys.com/inspeqtor/
Didn't the tweet predate the selling by a good few months?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a copyright violation if it isn't cleanroom, that means you don't get to re-license it under different terms. It will count as a derivative work under copyright law.
For what it's worth, Monit says it's not clean-room but Mike says it is ( https://twitter.com/mperham/status/519165523473358848 ).
There are some very dubious claims in their DMCA takedown notice: > The work, Inspeqtor which is hosted at GitHub, is far from a “clean-room” implementation. This is basically a rewrite of Monit in Go, even using the same configuration language that is used in Monit, verbatim. There is no concept of "clean room" in copyright law, the only issue is whether or not substantial copying has occurred. While it may be easie…
There is no concept of "clean room" in copyright law Sure there is. "Clean room" just means you have good legal evidence that you created an original work not a derivative one. It is a bit like having an alibi during a murder trial. There is no law that says you must have an alibi to not be convicted of murder, just like there is no law requiring clean room to dodge the copyright bullet, but having one is strong evid…
Oracle vs Google is complex and I reluctantly chose to gloss over the details. The case still has some appeals to go yet, posssiby to the supreme court. While the difference between APIs being copyrightable vs fair use is important, the practical impact should be negligible: if an API as large as the JDK can be copied without permission, then any API can.
[1]: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-10-06-tildes...