> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Liotta [mailto:qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: RE: [MI400] RE:modify program object > > > "jt" <jt@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >I would guess not, but I'd just be guessing. (I sure DO > know that Most > >Every software agreement I've Ever seen disallows > reverse-engineering, but > >it seems to be done an awful lot anyway in all niches of the > IT industry, so > >I dunno?.?) > > Also note that the practice of 'reverse engineering' is > generally legally protected activity. I've seen no definitive > answer about continuing questions over how much licensing > language may successfully prohibit it; which doesn't mean it > doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. I'm not sure even that's the case these days, given the DCMA can be twisted to prosecute almost all forms of reverse engineering. And before anyone says "The DCMA is just for the US" - Europe and Australia are currently close to signing in to law very similar (since they were modelled off of the DCMA) legislation. --phil  This is because it was purposely written to be 'flexible'  In some cases, it's not so much the final prosecution that's the play, but the cost to defend against the claim that ends up making the DCMA 'work'.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.