John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05/11/07 10:33, Amy Templeton wrote: > > John Hassler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Amy Templeton wrote: > > Well, sweet! So the impression I'm getting is that reverse > > engineering is basically protected by law?
> I wrote: > > When done for interoperability. > > So that means that I could use decoder programs without fearing > > that they may become illegal? > I wrote: > > No. > Amy Templeton wrote: > > Oh well. Well, in that case, I stand by my original position: I do > > not want to get used to depending on decoders if I can't have some > > degree of assurance they'll be available later. > What do you mean by "decoders"? I assumed you meant software for breaking > DRM on music and movies. If you mean software for converting documents > from proprietary formats the question does not arise: there is no DRM > involved. By "decoders" I mean things like antiword that remove all the nasty binary blobs and leave the ASCII text. Does the new version of M$-Word include some sort of code for embedding movies now? On what level is that even necessary or even desirable??? Isn't that what, say, *video* files are for??? So wait...I'm really confused. Can I or can I not (reasonably) depend on such software's (antiword and the like) remaining legal? Amy -- Do not underestimate the power of the Force. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
