On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:58:22 +0300, Jack wrote in message
<20160608105821.GA15427@???>:

> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:22:29PM +0900, Simon Walter wrote:
> > Since Chung's new version is written in Python, wouldn't it be
> > considered a different piece of software? I don't think a re-write
> > in another language of something licensed under the MIT license can
> > even be considered a derivative, much less a copy.
>
> Yeah, I was going to say that too: a rewrite in another language is a
> completely new piece of software and I've see things like that being
> licensed under a different license dozens of times. Hell, full
> rewrites in the same language are often licensed differently with no
> problems. A full rewrite is just that — a different implementation,
> especially if it's in a different language as well.

..it _can_ be argued both ways whether such a "full rewrite" would be
a same-language reimplementation or merely an handmade _copy_, is why
cautious people do it the clean room way, with one guy specifying the
ideas from the original source and hands that specification over to
the programmer guy (or gal) who then writes a program reimplementing
those specified ideas.

..a different language reimplementation of the eriginal ideas will most
probably require at least some manmade "new work" under copyright law.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.