Peter Hansen wrote: > Maurice LING wrote: > >> It makes big difference (legally) to if the codes are there and >> someone sees it, to if the codes are locked in some packaged or zipped >> form and someone reverse-engineer it. It is legally as different as if >> you drop money on the ground and I pick it up, to pick-pocketing you >> and take the money. >> >> Nobody seems to be able to understand this simple logic. > > > So you're saying that reverse engineering Java bytecode is illegal, > while doing the same with Python bytecode is not? Or something like > that? (And you're a lawyer, right? Because if you're not, and you're > not citing your sources, why is it we should put any value in these > comments about what is (legally) true?) > > -Peter
I am not saying reverse engineering Python bytecodes is legal while reverse engineering Java bytecodes is illegal. Please do not put words into my mouth, I am just saying "codes locked in some packaged or zipped form", reverse engineering is illegal unless specifically approved, be it Python bytecodes, Java bytecodes, Smalltalk, compiled executables etc etc... AND THIS HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN OTHER THREADS, like in "bytecode non-backcompatibility" in April 2005 of python-list. I am not a lawyer. Based on what I've read and seen, I won't try it. Below is an example of such articles by a law firm, citating case laws. Please google the term "reverse engineering computer sources" and you will find heaps of materials. You might like to test the depth of your pockets in courtroom, be my guest From http://www.jenkins-ip.com/serv/serv_6.htm COMPUTER PROGRAMS In the case of computer programs, the EU directive states (11) that the ideas and principles underlying a program are not protected by copyright, and that (12) logic, algorithms and programming languages may to some extent comprise ideas and principles. Analysis of the function of a program (but not decompilation (13))is permitted under Article 5.3, if it is carried out by a licensed user in the normal use of the program. Reverse engineering is allowed under Article 6, but only for the single purpose of producing an interoperable program (rather than a competing program). For this purpose, in addition to reverse engineering itself (i.e. producing a high level version of the code) subsequent forward engineering to produce the interoperable program is permitted. However, the reverse engineer has to cross a host of formidable barriers before he can make use of this right; 1. It must be indispensable to reverse engineer to obtain the necessary information. 2. The reverse engineering has to be by a licensee or authorised user. 3. The necessary information must not already have been readily available to those people. 4. Only the parts of the program necessary for interoperability (i.e. the interfaces) can be reproduced. 5. The information generated by the reverse engineering cannot be used for anything other than achieving interoperability of an independently created program. 6. The information cannot be passed on to others except where necessary for this purpose. 7. The information obtained cannot be used to make a competing program (rather than just an interoperable one). 8. The "legitimate interests" of the copyright owner or "normal exploitation" of the program must not be prejudice. Thus, far from creating a general right to reverse engineer, these provisions create only the smallest of openings for the reverse engineer; they are intended for use only to defeat locked, confidential, proprietary interfaces. (11) Council Directive 96/9/EC 11 March 1996; enacted in the UK as S.I. 1997 No. 3032 13th recital (12) 14th recital (13) See, for example, Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, Section 29(4) SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD v. ACCOLADE INC 977 F.2D 1510 (9TH CIR. 1992) This US software copyright case concerned Sega's video game console and cartridges. The cartridges had a 20-25 byte code segment which was interrogated by the console, as a security measure. Accolade disassembled the code which was common to three different Sega games cartridges, to find the security segment, and included it in competing games cartridges. The Ninth Circuit held this disassembly to be a permitted "fair use" of the copyright in the games programs. ATARI v. NINTENDO 975 F.2D 872 (FED. CIR. 1992) This US software copyright case concerned Nintendo’s NES video game console and cartridges. The cartridges contained a microprocessor, and program code, and was interrogated by the console microprocessor, as a security measure, like the Sega system. The security was potentially a two-way process, with the console checking for a valid cartridge and the potential for the cartridge to check for a valid console (which Nintendo did not actually do). Atari disassembled the program code which performed the security signalling exchange (the interface code). However, they also had access to a copy of the source code from the US Copyright Registry, to obtain which they stated (untruthfully) that it was for the purposes of litigation. They implemented the signalling exchange to validate the cartridge, thus achieving compatibility of their cartridges with Nintendo consoles. However, they went further and implemented the rest of the interface, to validate the consoles, apparently in case Nintendo changed their product in future. In each case, they copied some actual code, allegedly only to the extent necessary. The Court held that the intermediate copying during reverse engineering was legitimate, as "fair use". However, Atari infringed copyright nonetheless, in going too far in copying beyond what was strictly necessary. The programmer apparently also had sight of the source code from the US Copyright Registry, casting some doubt on whether the copying was solely due to the reverse engineering operation. Finally, Nintendo had a patent on the interface, and Atari were found to infringe that too. AUTODESK INC v. DYASON [1992] RPC 575 & (NO. 2) [1993] 12 RPC 259 This Australian software copyright case concerned a CAD package, which was supplied with a hardware device containing an EPROM, called the AutoCAD lock, which operated with part of the package called the "Widget-C" program. The program sent a challenge signal to the lock, which replied with a return signal. The program checked the return signal against a lookup table. The lookup table comprised 16 bytes of a 30kByte program. An encrypted form of the lookup table was held in the lock EPROM. The Defendant studied the signals with an oscilloscope, and read them. Apparently, the correct contents of the EPROM were deduced from this functional analysis, without reading of the EPROM. They then produced an alternative lock device. The Plaintiff alleged that the table was a substantial part of the program, and that the program had thus been copied. The Court held that the table was a substantial part of the program (an issue of importance rather than size) and that it had been copied, and that this was an infringement. A move to re-hear the case, on the basis that the Court had misunderstood, was dismissed (with dissenting judgements). POWERFLEX SERVICES PTY LTD v. DATA ACCESS CORP [1997] 12 EIPR 732 This Australian software copyright case concerned a database management system (Dataflex) which was "cloned" by the Defendant. Apparently, although the Court referred to reverse engineering, the Defendant did not actually analyse the code by decompilation or disassembly, but read the manual to produce a lookalike using the same commands and file structures. All this was held not to infringe. However, Dataflex used compression of records, using a stored table of Huffman codes to compress and decompress. The table thus constituted an interface between the program and the files. There is no indication that the files were to be shared with other programs, so the table was not an interface to non-competing interoperable programs. The Defendant wanted his program to be able to read files created by Dataflex and so he calculated the required compression table, apparently from inspection of stored records, which therefore reproduced that of Dataflex. It was held that although the table was not a substantial part of the program (or even part of the program at all), it attracted literary copyright as a compilation in its own right, and that copyright was held infringed. CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD v. AZTECH SYSTEMS PTE LTD [1997] FSR 491 This Singapore software copyright case concerned the Sound Blaster PC Sound Card It contained firmware, and was supplied with an ancillary PC program to operate with it. The Defendants wanted to produce a sound card which could interoperate with PC programs which would operate with the Sound Blaster – in other words, to create a competing substitute. They bought and studied a Sound Blaster and ancillary program. They were held (on the balance of probabilities) to have disassembled and reverse engineered the firmware, and admitted running the ancillary program (which they pleaded as a "fair dealing"). In their product, only about 4% of the code was identical to that of the Sound Blaster firmware, but that 4% included redundancies and errors present in the original, suggesting copying (going beyond that which is necessary). The Court held (reversing the first instance) that although the ultimate products did not involve a substantial reproduction of the original program, there was clear evidence that reverse engineering had been used and hence that an intermediate copy had been made. This and the admitted copying (in unlicensed use) of the ancillary program were both not "fair dealing", and hence infringed. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
