From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,effb80d4bb7716dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Open Source Licensing (was: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future) Date: 1999/02/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 442522931 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk> <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner> <79d0db$6h5$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.171318.1@eisner> <79dp2o$s2h$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36ba730b.35540068@news.pacbell.net> <79eq4l$m1a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36bb301f.2303870@news.pacbell.net> <79fmg1$fn0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79fvk4$npp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79nfkk$gpf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79pdpd$42v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes: > In article , > minyard@acm.org wrote: > > > Right to reverse-engineer is guaranteed by law in the US > > (Nintento vs Galoob). What the licenses say means > > nothing. US Congress is working > > to change that, but maybe they can be stopped. > > Corey, you are not a lawyer, so you should be very careful > about making misleading statements like this. The case, > which by the way is misspelled here, it is Nintendo vs > Galoob, does not have anything like the general sweeping > interpretation that you suggest. I apologize for speaking out of line. You are correct, I am not a lawyer and should be more careful about what I say. My knowledge (reading articles and the like) is old in this area. > > You need to study case law in much more detail, and I am > afraid you will find it is more depressing than you think > with respect to reverse engineering. Look for example at > Microsoft vs Stacker, and many other cases (if you go into > one of the standard legal search engines, and look for > reverse engineering, you will pull up quite a few cases). You are correct. The reason you are reverse engineering matters, I believe. And the method, too. Care should be taken. And it is depressing. > > You also need to study the recent legislation passed by > congress, which also affects the situation here. This is true, and is also depressing. Thank you for your response. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortelnetworks.com UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com