2 Feb
2006
2 Feb
'06
7:47 p.m.
On 2/2/06, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 2/2/06, Jerry <crashfourit(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's actually (f)(1), which referrs back to
(a)(1)(A).
"We conclude that where disassembly is the
only way to gain access
to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer
program and where there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access,
disassembly is a fair use as a matter of law"--Sega Enterprises Ltd. v.
Accolade, Inc
Try reading the court finding "Our conclusion does not, of
course,insulate Accolade from a claim of copyright infringement with
respect to its finished products." Only if its clean roomed can you
make a case for it not being a copyright violation.
I love when someone brings up Title 17. I study this like other study the GPL.
The key point is section F1a1a
...independently created computer program with other programs, and
that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging
in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification
and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
The term independance implies clean room orginal implementation
In context, it reads more like "third-party", furthermore, this entire
section refers to circumventing a "technological measure that
effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program".
I wouldn't think compiled code would fall under that, so I don't see
what measure we are circumventing.
and futher section 2 states
or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently
created computer program with other programs, if such means are
necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing
so does not constitute infringement under this title.
I don't think interoperability even comes into play, since we are not
writing code that will directly interact with the code that was being
analyzed.
Once again we see 'independently created' and further we see 'if such
means are necessary'. One could argue that if I can make Windows
drivers and apps work under ReactOS without reverse enginering but by
only implementing the APIs listed in the DDK and SDK then such mean
ARE NOT necessary. It is only on a case by case basis where you must
site which means ARE necessary.
I don't think "Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201 of the US Code"
(Circumvention of copyright protection systems) (a.k.a The DMCA) is
really what we should be discussing, since we are not circumventing
anything that I know of. If am I am wrong, I would certainly like to
be enlightened.
I would think we should be much more concerned about "derivative
works", or straight copyright violations (cut and paste of source
code).
WD
--
<Alex_Ionescu> it's like saying let's rename Ke to Kernel because
people think it's Ketchup