HN Explorer

Ask HN: Re-implementing an Open Source project in another language

7 points by jpcx01 ↗ HN
If someone reimplemented a popular Open Source project in another language (say someone rebuilt PhpBB in Django), what would the license on the new project be?

Specifically, say it was reimplented as a black box (only page flow and maybe some shared ui assets css/js/img), and the final product looked the same but no web code similarities or database implementation details are shared.

Would one still have to release it as GPL? Could they release it as BSD instead?

Would you recommend a lawyer for this type of question? If so, please let me know if you have a referral.

Thanks in advance

5 comments

[ 52.7 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] thread
bdfh42
This one is pretty simple. If you were to write a clone of (say) PhpBB without looking at the original source code but just re-engineering the functionality you wanted to replicate then you would have a new piece of software over which you could claim copyright and which you could license as you wish. This is just the same as sitting down to write (for example) a new word processing program that emulated key features of MS Word.

However, porting an existing GPL code base to a new language would I strongly suspect be seen as a simple "fork" of the original code and you would (quite rightly) have to release your new code under the GPL license. This is fair and just - you can't just rip off other peoples intellectual property no matter how much work there is involved in doing so.

jpcx01
Very useful answer. Thanks!

One quick clarification.. what if I reused CSS and Image Assets from PhpBB? Its sort of strange there because there are many templates that are under different licenses than the source code itself.

How does one define GPL on CSS and Images? They are open by default (since anyone can view source on a browser). I'm guessing this IP is governed under a different set of laws (copyright?).

bdfh42
Getting more complex now you are into the detail. Partly, things depend upon the laws applicable in a given instance. In some cases copyright has to be explicitly claimed and in other jurisdictions it is implicit. This has been touched on at HN before - CSS code (and JavaScript, HTML etc) is effectively open in that it is generally available to be read by all but it may still be 'owned' in the sense that copyright will often still apply.

Perhaps one should apply a 'moral' filter. It seems OK (if not inevitable) for one's designs to be strongly influenced by the layout and colour schemes of existing sites but it also seems proper that one should not copy CSS and layouts wholesale from elsewhere. There are plenty of tutorial sites demonstrating the most complex of CSS code - copy from them where it encouraged and then apply your own unique 'spin'.

SwellJoe
They are open by default (since anyone can view source on a browser).

That doesn't make them "open" in the sense of Open Source or Free Software. It merely makes them open in the same way a book is open...you can read it, and you could even copy it without technical impediment, but it can still be a copyrighted work.

cjg
It might also depend on the licence of the original project. For example, a project originally released under BSD could be re-released under many different kinds of licence.