|
|
|
|
|
|
by upofadown
26 days ago
|
|
|
The linked article makes the argument that looking at the BSD licensed example code in the RFC that defines Opus would mean that code written based on that understanding would be a derivative work and would have to be BSD licensed. This seems to have something to do with the fact that "clean-room design"[1] is a thing. But as the Wikipedia article points out: >Clean-room design is usually employed as best practice, but not strictly required by law. As the article points out, if this was actually true then we could change the licensing on code examples found in RFCs to fix the issue, but there doesn't seem to be any actual issue here. Imagine a world where simply reading some code caused licensing issues... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design |
|
|