thufir scripsit: > Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I > think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're > coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the > mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse > engineering?
The terms of the license, to be sure. Many proprietary licenses require you to give up the right to reverse engineer the software in order to obtain the right to use the software at all. The statement "Reverse engineering is legal" is not equivalent to "A license requirement not to reverse engineer is void", any more than the freedom of speech means that non-disclosure agreements are void. We can contract out of our rights to do all sorts of things, and do so daily. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done." "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery." _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
