Subject:
|
SV: Legalities of reverse-engineering (was: Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:58:02 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Jari Pyyluoma <(jari-pyy@)NoSpam(dsv.su.se)>
|
Viewed:
|
541 times
|
| |
|
|
If you did not download it from Lego, but say found it in a
newsgroup then the agreement does not bind you. Then
only the laws of your state are applicable. Then again does
Lego know who downloaded their stuff? As I see it no law
really cares what you do at home as long as it is not for profit,
but then again I may be wrong.
Jari Pyyluoma
>
> [Disclaimer: IANAL!]
>
>
> In lugnet.robotics, Robert Munafo <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> writes:
> > That is definitely true, at least right now. Everyone who downloaded the
> > Scout SDK agreed not to "reverse-engineer" it, and that includes figuring
> > out the download protocol or bytecode format.
>
> Hmm, I'm not so sure. Did everyone actually *really* agree not to reverse-
> engineer it? Look closer at the license agreement[1]...it says that you may
> not:
>
> (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble
> (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software;
> ^^^^^^^
>
> In other words, whether or not someone actually agreed not to reverse-
> engineer the SDK is dependent on local/national laws (and presumably, in the
> case of U.S. downloads, that means the State of Connecticut if provision VI
> of the Agreement applies here.) Thus, it's not necessarily true that
> *everyone* who downloaded it actually agreed not to reverse-engineer it.
>
> Moreover, even if someone did agree not to do it, it doesn't necessarily
> mean that they can't legally still go ahead and do it; it may very well be
> that (ii) above is completely non-enforceable.
>
>
> > As I see it, the only way the download protocol or bytecode format are
> > going to become legally available is if someone figures it out on their own,
> > without having interacted with any of us. You can't just recruit someone to
> > do the work for you, because asking someone to do it makes you partly
> > responsible for what they have done, and you would still be considered
> > guilty of reverse-engineering.
>
> But thanks to Sega v. Accolade and Atari v. Nintendo and other landmark
> cases earlier in the decade, there's probably nothing to be guilty of,
> in this case.
>
> The following may shed some light on all of this...
>
> http://www.lgu.com/cr46.htm
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/commentary/intelpro/chn95int.htm
>
> As far as I can tell (and again, I am not a lawyer and this is just my
> unqualified opinion), there's nothing whatsoever legally that LEGO can do
> to prevent people in the U.S. and the European Union from reverse-
> engineering any programmable brick software they release.
>
> The clause about agreeing not to reverse-engineer the SDK is, I think,
> simply a bit of standard legal FUD to scare people off. Can't blame 'em,
> I guess...
>
> --Todd
>
> [1] http://www.legomindstorms.com/scout_sdk/SDK.asp
>
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
