Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268702AbTGZTcb (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:32:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268822AbTGZTcb (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:32:31 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]:62697 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268702AbTGZTcQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:32:16 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Leandro_Guimar=E3es_Faria_Corsetti_Dutra?= Subject: Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way. Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:46:28 +0200 Organization: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=20Fam=C3=ADlia?= Dutra Message-ID: References: <20030724215744.GA7777@work.bitmover.com> <20030726192322.GA24865@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2630 Lines: 55 On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:23:22 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > I can't tell if we are in agreement or not. As far as I've been > able to tell disallowing reverse engineering is not allowed in some > countries if and only if the application does not provide documented > ways to interoperate with the application. People have tried to claim > otherwise but every time we've dug into we've found the laws to be pretty > reasonable and balanced. I find quite amusing your notion of reason and balance. Or rather sad... > They tend to have the view "if you are being > a jerk and locking people into your application with no way to get at > their data, then of course reverse engineering is allowed, how else are > people to get at their data? On the other hand, if you are being nice > and you provide documented ways for people to get at their data then > reverse engineering is not allowed". Which seems to make sense, right? No. Reverse engineering is first a way of learning, then a safeguard... if you need to learn (for there are no docs) and if you need a safeguard (for you can't trust the vendor), then you need the possibility of cloning. Both of these conditions are much more likely present in non-free software. If both of them are fulfilled, it is also very likely one will need to create a clone, but not necessarily so. That you get so jumpy at the mere mention of reverse engineering should have rang bells everywhere long time ago, not only at the FSF proverbial HQ. > If corporations aren't trying to lock you into their products then they > ought to be able to enjoy some fruits from their labors without people > coping their work. I assume you meant copying. No one is threatening to copy your source code. People only want to create a clone, not a copy: something that interoperates with the same data structures, perhaps with the same user interfaces. Perhaps you are claiming the definition of protocols and data structures as protected by copyright. Perhaps, but it doesn't make cloning less moral. Laws and morals unfortunately are splitting farther and farther. -- _ Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 648 11 34 / \ http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +41 (78) 778 11 34 \ / Answer to the list, not to me directly! +55 (11) 5686 2219 / \ Rate this if helpful: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=leandro - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/