Tom Vogt wrote:
> 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)
Stacker was an end-user of Doublespace and violated the license
agreement by decompiling it. Reverse-engineering was prohibited
even for private uses (ie, without publishing it). Thus, with or
without publication, Stacker, Skala and Jansson did reverse engineer
and did trespass on property of others. This is the important similarity
-- and effective legal precedence -- which was ignored in the news release:
>>In an unusual legal strategy, Microsystems alleged that Skala and Jansson
>>violated U.S. copyright law when they reverse-engineered Cyber Patrol to
>>analyze it, which the company said is expressly prohibited in its license
>>agreements.
and which, possibly, will be very hard for Skala and Janson to overcome.
> 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.
Yes. But the other model (selling) has its faults too.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
