[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Difficulties in interoperating with Windows
    ---------  Received message begins Here  ---------

    > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 10:04:11 -0600 (CST), "Jesse Pollard"
    > <> wrote:
    > > > But would it? If you disassemble part/all of Windows and use the code
    > > > to understand how it works, then use this to create a specification
    > > > and write code to use that specification, there should be no problem?
    > >
    > > As long as someone ELSE does the developement (this is the "clean room"
    > > developement that lawyers like for the defence - it must also be fully
    > > documented).
    > Hmmm, I don't know about that, as long as the (source) code is different,
    > I don't think it can be argued that it was copied not created. But that's
    > probably a legal battle that no-one would want to get in to.

    Yup - there are too many source code manglers that can make what appears to
    be significant changes that do nothing more that change field names, structure
    names, and limited re-ordering of statements.

    > > > Correct, but I'm not talking about recompiling Windows and selling it,
    > > > I'm talking about decompiling it and using the decompiled source to
    > > > make Linux work better with it. That is completely legal.
    > >
    > > Not really - M$ will come after you. That's why the problems with NTFS
    > > still exist - the people that were working on it (even in a "clean
    > > room") had to desist. They (as I understand it) eventually dropped their
    > > M$ software. And NTFS is still read-only.
    > Are they US based developers?

    I think they were/are.

    > > > Reverse engineering for the sole:purpose of copying or duplicating
    > > > programs constitutes a copyright:violation and is illegal. In some
    > > > cases, the licensed use of software:specifically prohibits reverse
    > > > engineering.
    > >
    > > And M$ will go after you because of the last two sentences. Especially
    > > the "duplicating programs" part. They will (have?) claimed that
    > > duplicating NTFS functionality is not legal.
    > But the first of your two chosen sentences seems to read as
    > copy/duplicating in the sense of piracy. Obviously as it isn't 100%
    > clear, then it would be a possible legal case for Microsoft, but to be
    > honest I can't see the courts going with it. Otherwise there would only
    > be one product of each particular type of software.
    > As to the second: under UK law any license which tries to restrict the
    > lawful users ability to decompile the product is expressly void. They
    > cannot enforce that portion of the contract under UK law (which a UK
    > citizen buying Windows in the UK would come under).
    > > (I think Jeff Merkey was
    > > the one doing this - He should the one to really comment on the problems
    > > he had with M$).
    > I certainly would be interested in hearing his he here and
    > watching this thread? :-)
    > > Also note - none of that definition addresses the ability to publish the
    > > results.
    > OK, I understand not publishing the decompiled code, but what would be the
    > problem is publishing your code.

    Trade secrets, patented algorithms, DMCA ... I'm sure the lawyers can find

    Jesse I Pollard, II

    Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.033 / U:1.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site