Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CBC5CB4C.3FC91%aharui@adobe.com>
References: <4FA077B0.9060503@dot-com-it.com>
	<CBC5CB4C.3FC91%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 08:01:43 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALorpXc0Vy3SmKby4+qYAZYro5i4Dk=utTNdagrT=C4wM5GJXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MENTORS] Handling Adobe Binaries
From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cb7286263f304bf0c734a

--0015175cb7286263f304bf0c734a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

But isn't creating an exact copy of the API our goal, in order to have
feature and functional parity?

If I don't match the function signatures, then the world goes to shit.

-Nick


On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 5/1/12 4:54 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <jeffry@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
>
> >   It shouldn't violate copyright; because we are writing our own code
> > from scratch.  Unless Adobe wants to claim copyright on the API which is
> > possible.  I know I read about a API related lawsuit at one point, but I
> > have no idea what the results were.
> Again, I'm not a lawyer, but here's my logic:  If we were writing actual
> code that did something, then I would agree, starting from scratch
> shouldn't
> be a violation of copyright.  But to try to create an exact replica of an
> API is to me the equivalent of hearing a song, but not having the sheet
> music, re-creating the song exactly.  I don't think you can do that in the
> music business.
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
>

--0015175cb7286263f304bf0c734a--