Re: Dtrace port status

On 21.09-02:14, Darren Reed wrote:
[ ... ]
> >Only if it is clean-room coded.
> 
> So find someone who hasn't read that email, write up a spec for the missing
> fields that dtrace requires and ask them to implement and commit the change
> to the dtrace branch on freebsd.org ? :)

this has merit.

to be honest, within copyright (UK and EU), i think you could
reasonably use structure definitions as they are fundamental to the
interaction, not the operation of the code.  this has support, though
it's not been specifically ruled on in court (certainally not that
i'm aware of).  there is a much bigger problem around patents and no
amount of clean room coding is going to avoid those.
 ... having said that, nethier is adding some secondary structure --
that is not how patent coverage works, only copyright.