Ed Gerck wrote:
> Thus, what happened here is not new and those that want to
> effectively combat "hidden" features, pirated code or covert
> weaknesses by decompiling code should be aware of it. The
> end, however merit it may have, cannot justify the means.
there is an important difference here. in both the cyberpatrol and the
decss cases, the end-users of a piece of software were sued, for
violation of the license. (and while stacker probably had a valid
license and was thus technically and end-user, I think it is obvious
where the difference is)
this touches on the uncertain state of click-wrap or shrink-wrap
licenses and on the question of whether or not the seller of my car can
forbid me to open the hood. of course, that you don't BUY software, but
LICENSE it is exactly why he (technically) can in software. which brings
up the next point, namely whether licensing is appropriate for software
or simply being used because it gives the companies more power than a
sales contract would - power that they strive to extend further, see
UCITA.
