From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:45:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:45:10 -0500 Received: from cambot.suite224.net ([209.176.64.2]:45573 "EHLO suite224.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:44:29 -0500 Message-ID: <003601c2d430$88b6df40$0100a8c0@pcs686> From: "Matthew D. Pitts" To: References: <1045233701.7958.14.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Subject: Re: openbkweb-0.0 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:54:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan, > What he says about this is not worth a sheeps fart. Most of the world > allows reverse engineering for compatibility, full stop. What the laws say is one thing. What the courts rule, no matter whether it is in the UK, EU, or the US, is what matters. In my previous post on this subject, I pointed out that US law provides for that in the DMCA, but the courts have said that what the lawmakers wrote isn't what they meant... Matthew