Pijul: Towards 1.0
Hm, right at the start in the "Warning about licenses" they seem to try to make the GPL apply to a concept, an abstract algorithm -- kinda like a patent? But I don't think that's how licenses like the GPL work? And hence that this is not legally binding in any way? At the very least, it reads rather strangely to me. Perhaps someone who knows more about licensing that me can elaborate?<p>To clarify: they claim that after reading the article, any independent implementation of the algorithm (even if it didn't involve looking at their code) must be licensed under the GPL. But that seems to go against everything I thought I knew about "clean room reverse engineering"?