RE: [MI400] RE:modify program object

["Hall, Philip" <phall@xxxxxxxx>]

> -----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[1] 
to prosecute[2] 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

[1] This is because it was purposely written to be 'flexible'
[2] 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'.