This is going off topic a bit, so appologies to those who don't want the spam - hit that delete key now ;-)...
"Gavin R. Brewer" wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Maybe it is but there was a lot of dicussion about BIOS's and reverse
engineering and
'clean rooming' before on this list and if I remember rightly a list member
having
trained/part trained as a lawyer warned us about reverse engineering and
copying of
code.
Fair play, but when you decompile and reverse engineer, THEN port to another platform, who has the slightest shred of proof?
The problem is proving you did not just copy it, before porting it...
If memory serves me the problem comes down to if you have read the code and
any of
the code matches the original it can be deemed that you have copied it...
Fair enough, but what if two people from opposite sides of the globe come up with nearly identical designs and thus source code? Then you start having silly competetive ego-battles galore. (I dont think Richard Stallman would approve..)
Then it's not a problem so long as neither looked at each others source neither will be liable for copyright violations (remembering at this point that both would have to have copyrighted their software at some point and it is likely that they would do so at around the same time)...
however if you have never seen/read the code and write the exact same instructions you
can
legally use it....
People decompile all the time in firms and such. Why make a secret of it?
Because if it states in a valid license that the software is not to be reverse engineered then that invalidates your right to use/view the software...?
Mind you, I am a EFF hacktivist, so that goes without saying..
makes no difference to me
The hard part is proving how you wrote the code,
The Law sux in this respect. I get sick of Micro$oft running the US, and the US running the world like the 51st state of America. What happened to the Hacker Ethic?
The law sux for a lot of things, but unless you want to spend time in jail you accept the law as it stands or move to somewhere where the law is different.....
The M$ argument - well considering my employers you would guess that I, personally, agree that M$ pulls the strings in certain places and that is wrong.... However there is more than m$ at issue.... Living outside of the USA I have found that generally nothing exists outside of the USA - well that's how all the head offices/engineers seem to think. (Particually engineers that are writing TimeZone code!!! ;-/)
Hacker ethic is a different matter, and each has a different view about what it is...
Died when M$ was born?
Not at all (at least not from my perspective).
without seeing/reading the original...
Grrr...now THAT is the old argument that really p!%%#s me off. When you obtain source code, you get an executable file.
If you have the source you follow the license that allows you to use the source, not a problem...
Are you telling me that it is *wrong* to look at the executable source, to admire it's wonderful engineering etc. etc.?
No, however if you intend to write something that will do the same/similar things, viewing someone elses source is a bad thing unless you intend licensing it as per the writers/copyright owners wish....
For example I have just written a news->html client for the base64->binary and quoted-printable->8bit conversions I used 2 functions prewritten by some clever people in the University of Washington. It saved me a lot of time and effort, so I wrote to them asking permission to use the functions... they were more than happy to allow me. So now I am releasing the client under the MPL (Mozilla Public License) .......
Now if I had just copied their functions it would be quite likely that sooner or later they would have seen them and they would have asked that I do not use them anymore they would be within their rights to stop me using the functions.... Theat would have had a dramatic effect... I would have had to have written 2 new functions not using their simple and quick code, effectively I would have had to re-invent the wheel without making it round.
How can you patent Mathematics? After all, is that what design principles, algorithms and data structures come down to in the end anyhow?
In the literal sense maybe, however another similar example is drugs, they are all made up of elements in the purest form, atoms if you want to go further etc... yet drugs can be patented, you may as well just levy the same argument against the drugs companies....
I'll tell you what they are: DISCRETE MATHEMATICS.
And if anyone wants to patent the sacred platonic purity of D.M., they ought to be shoved in a loony-bin somewhere...The whole matter is a contradiction in terms, if you ask me.
PS. Please dont take any of the above personally. d:-)
I don't... ;-)
However, I do think you maybe misguided in your analysis of the issue (about 4 years ago I remember having a similar conversation. I had, what I think is, your view of the world now, then. Looking back I know I was wrong - I maybe wrong to apply the same logic now, if I am, no doubt someone will tell me ;-)).
Yours
Matthew