knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (10/15/88)
In article <e6m10#2eDFfC=eric@snark.UUCP>, eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > Peter ("Have you hugged your wolf today?") deSilva seems to think the point > of a uMIIL is to provide a medium for selling software, a way for it to be > distributed in machine-independent form that nosy hackers can't read and > modify. > Excuse me, but I thought the security problem in for-sale software was to guard > it from unauthorized *copying* and *use*, not unauthorized *understanding. Well, some vendors are afraid of people (competitors?) understanding their code. Tandy Radio Shack software usually includes in the copyright notice "customer is explicitly forbidden to disassemble the software." Few serious computerists have been deterred by this notice (I know of one who was for a while), but they are afraid to post the disassemblies on public BBSes. There is a question of "fair use" here, since sometimes you have to hack and patch a program to make it useful on your system. -- Mike Knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) att!ihlpl!knudsen "Lawyers are like handguns and nuclear bombs. Nobody likes them, but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (10/16/88)
In article <7226@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: > ... Tandy Radio Shack software usually includes in > the copyright notice "customer is explicitly forbidden to disassemble > the software." ... > > There is a question of "fair use" here, since sometimes you have > to hack and patch a program to make it useful on your system. Be careful here. Most software is protected by license agreements that are substantially more restrictive than mere copyright. If you buy software and agree to the terms, and if the terms say "no disassembly", then you aren't allowed to do it. I know that license agreements are subject to interpretation, but "fair use" is not likely to apply much to software except for backup purposes. Note: (friedl != attorney) && (friedl == thankful) Follups to comp.misc -- Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl ---------Nancy Reagan on the Three Stooges: "Just say Moe"---------
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/21/88)
In article <7226@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >... Tandy Radio Shack software usually includes in >the copyright notice "customer is explicitly forbidden to disassemble >the software." ... This sort of restriction is very common. Sun binary licenses include a similar clause. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (10/23/88)
In article <1988Oct21.155329.14161@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: -In article <7226@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: ->... Tandy Radio Shack software usually includes in ->the copyright notice "customer is explicitly forbidden to disassemble ->the software." ... -This sort of restriction is very common. Sun binary licenses include -a similar clause. So does Apple's. What I wonder is, in the absence of a signed license agreement, is any of that enforceable?
renglish@hpisod1.HP.COM (Bob English) (11/03/88)
> / gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) / 12:51 pm Oct 22, 1988 / > In article <1988Oct21.155329.14161@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > -This sort of restriction is very common. Sun binary licenses include > -a similar clause. > So does Apple's. What I wonder is, in the absence of a signed license > agreement, is any of that enforceable? I suspect, though as usual I am not a lawyer (not while I'm sending messages, anyway), that the real effect of the "Do Not Disassemble" warnings is to protect unpublished algorithms. As I understand it, an algorithm is a basic idea, and cannot be patented or copyrighted any more than a mathematical theorem can. A particular implementation of that algorithm is, however, copyrightable. By adding a prohibition against disassembly, companies give themselves a cause for action if their secret algorithms make it into the public domain ("He must have disassembled, etc."). Also, remember that lawyers routinely write unenforceable provisions into contracts for intimidation purposes. I know of cases where employees where asked to sign non-disclosure agreements so broadly written that, had they been enforceable, the employees would have been unable to seek outside employment in their fields. When they complained, they were told not to worry, that the offensive provisions couldn't be enforced. All of which takes us pretty far afield. Weren't we talking about C? --bob--