I just read this on Wikipedia. In context you can see what they were trying to do, but in a word for word case… This could open a lot of can’s of worms…
Read as:
If disassembly of a copyrighted computer program is the only way to gain access to the ideas embodied therein, then by law it is okay to do so.
Hmmm…
Forgot to add…
That’s not copyright infringement…that would involve copying without authorization. Disassembly isn’t copying; reverse-engineering has long been used like that, such as how IBM clones were legally made.
–Eric
By US law there would be the requirement to have distinct unconnected entities between disassembly and “interpretation” of the same found knowledge.
But outside of the USA, disassembly is just another type of stealing and copyright infringement if the eula clearly points those things out.
I’ve actually never liked this “make illegal stuff legal”, would be as if it is legal to download music illegally to find out the partiture used in the music or the content of the vocals or as if you are allowed to download games illegally as game maker or films as film maker
I always had the idea of “All decompilation is illegal as it points to intended infringement”. Just an idea that was always in my head, s’all. That was why this judgement caught my attention.
You are aware that the point of not offering the sources IS to protect the intellectual property and gaining access to it, independent of the way, is an act of stealing this property.
You can not just go into a museum, rip appart a painting, give those parts to a friend who analizes them and then gives it to another friend to replace it or parts of it.
So why exactly should the very same thing be legal for software, I mean other than actively hurting big bussiness (the only ones having to lose something in this game as they just have something where you can save hundreds of thousands in license fees by doing exactly that).
Its the way how the US laws handle the situation at the time that makes it “not illegal”.
Lets see how you would think of the situation if two people would decompile your app and then make their own, just slightly modified version, available again for sale or even for free.
I’ve my doubts that you would still see it the way you currently see it and that holds for most whos intellectual work has been stolen thanks to this handling (which by the way does not comply to international copyright laws unless I’m wrong)
You’re aware that Unity wouldn’t exist (at least not in its current form) if it weren’t for Mono, yes? And then there’s WINE, which is certainly not illegal. In neither case was anything copied or stolen. If someone wants to go through the bother of re-implementing anything I’ve done, why would I care? If they just copy it, that’s another story.
This analogy makes no sense. Reverse engineering has nothing to do with destroying property.
–Eric
QFT.
I know that the example wasn’t the best.
The idea behind it was to show that it just can’t be right that you take other peoples effort, without compensating for it, potentially for your own financial benefit.
If the party in question wanted to make the code usable to 3rd party, the party would offer licensing options so you can gain access to the knowledge legally.
To go more in detail why stealing: With reverse engineering you basically gain knowledge from (normally pretty clearly licensed like that) non-reverse engineering allowed code, skip paying your license fee and covering your share of the R&D costs and do that all through an illegal act of breach of license.
By your logic, it would be legal to take a GPL technology, “reverse engineer it” and create own work basing on it as closed source.
Also, cracking of software would be legal if done by multiple persons within a team
But as mentioned, outside the USA its not legal to do anyway and I really hope that over the time, the US law will for once comply to common global standards there too (I think its mainly allowed because you can patent every poo of a brain in the USA, independent of any requirements that would make something patentable an “effort”)
Mono: That comparision is just as worse as mine. If MS wanted to protect it, mono wouldn’t exist.
But MS wants C# and .NET to exist on other platforms, they mentioned that since before day 1 of .NET.
I don’t see the problem. When reverse engineering, you are given a start point on a task and an example of the desired end result. If you can create method that goes from “point A” to “point B” that isn’t identical to the first guy’s approach, then what’s the problem?
Does the first guy have a monopoly on the task itself or did the task simply exist some time before someone was called upon to produce a more efficient solution over the current method of that time?
Reverse engineering isn’t a bad thing, it can lead to improvements over one’s original design that the initial creator may have overlooked.
I don’t say that finding a solution to come from A to B is a bad thing.
Thats how software development works.
But you analyze how it works and try to replicate it from the assumptions you have come up with basing on various points. That kind of reverse engineering is fine.
But at least to me thats fundamentally different to going to A, stealing / dublicating someones map and go with that to B by using disassemblers to really rip it appart to get what you want through illegal ways (I have yet to see an application that does not explicitely forb that)
If we wanted you to use it, he would have made it available to you as that would have made it possible to get a legal license for your doing.
If you use stuff directly (means 1:1 or near 1:1 replica) that you achieved through reverse engineering you are violating internation copyright, intellectual property and if you try to smartass that with a big player you will likely never again be without any depts.
Oh what the h*ll :twisted:
Ok, so where’s the line? Linux mimics the behaviour of Unix without (presumably) the coders having access to the “actual” source code. They are implementing the Unix “contract” (standard specifications).
A little closer to home, Mono, also is a (supposed) “clean room” implementation of the .Net specs… but as they potentially drain revenue from the company that has invested millions into both the specs and the “official” implementation…
“Reverse engineering” is the most common source of products in the world (historically). Yes, there are times where certain products or advancements have been derrived in multiple locations (globally) without a traceable connection (radar for example). But, most everything out there is a copy/enhancement of some kind or another. What makes software special?
You and I write code. You and I use the same compiler (heck, we use 80% of the same underlying pieces). The compilier generates machine interpretable (or actual executable) code. Which do you or I own? The compilier decides what form an if (or if not) statement complies to. It’s often the same reguardless of acual “code” as the developer wrote it. Most people can’t read (much less write) the resulting “executable” code directly. shall we limit copy right to compiler owners? Language owners? or (if your M$) the OS owners who’s operating system you extend to run your “application”? (most apps can’t run without some OS support 
)
I’m not saying I agree with the practice, however, if I write something that is great, or badly needs to be replaced, and I pass on, I hope someone can “re-learn” what I did however the means (long as I collect all the money possible while I’m alive :twisted: )
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Galen
I’ve nothing against the practice if it is used for what it is meant: scientific educational use to develop something more advanced from what you learned.
Learning from other games for example to create a new type of game with similarities (or even more or less similar behaviour - EAs very base of existance) is such a way of reverse engineering that I don’t have a problem with.
But I have a very large problem when it is used for what such things get more and more used in the internet age: Steal other peoples work to pretend that it was your work and at worst make money from it.
Thats stealing of my very own intellectual property and not educational / scientific use and to me as individual class company, its impossible to fight this threat, especially if they are backed up by dubious pre-digital age laws.
Thats all basing on what I know about the corresponding part of the laws. Its possible that I don’t know all aspects actually and that they contain clear enforcements on what you can and what you can not do with the REed informations, in that case above postings hold only if the corresponding aspects define RE to full replica as steal as well.
Very good news about MONO: