Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-general-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 2672 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 17:33:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 17:33:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 23289 invoked by uid 97); 13 Mar 2002 17:33:26 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-general@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 23238 invoked by uid 97); 13 Mar 2002 17:33:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta General List" Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" Delivered-To: mailing list general@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 23227 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 17:33:24 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: dyn-181.sfo.covalent.net: costinm owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:31:58 -0800 (PST) From: X-X-Sender: To: Jakarta General List Subject: RE: License issue (the come back) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro wrote: > Does not the DMCA expressly prohibit reverse-engineering? Or is it just > legaleze, not applicable in the real world? Implementing a published API/specification have nothing to do with reverse-engineering and I don't think it is prohibited. What seems to be prohibited by the words in the licence is distributing a BCL jar togheter with a clean-room implementation of another spec ( which require implementing javax./java. classes ). Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: