Re: [OT] DMCA loop hole

[Joseph Pingenot <jap3003@ksu.edu>]

>From Alan Cox on Friday, 03 August, 2001:
>> >From Paul G. Allen on Wednesday, 01 August, 2001:
>> >To take another angle, those of us who actively look for exploits in software (because companies like M$ fail to do so themselves) risk being sued for doing so.
>> Hrm.  Very good point.  However, under most EULA's I've seen, reverse
>>   engineering is already a no-no.
>Most EULA's are not legal contracts. In civilised countries the right to
>disassemble is enshrined in law (ironically it comes in Europe from trying
>to keep car manufacturers from running monopolistic scams not from the
>software people doing the same)

Very true.  However (I can only vouch for the USA, but I suspect it's
  a similar situation elsewhere) the company with Loads o' Cash can keep
  those of use with Loads o' Debt cowed and tied up in red tape and lawsuits
  until we cry uncle.

>In the USA its a lot less clear. You can find laws explicitly claiming both,
>and since US law is primarily about who has loads of money, its a bit
>irrelevant

Heh.  Criticism accepted.  Maybe one of the prerequisites for running for
  office should be Free Software / Open Source development.  :)  Seriously,
  though, anyone listening interested in running for office?  Maybe we should
  start the Free Software Party.

                              -Joseph
-- 
Joseph==============================================jap3003@ksu.edu
"IBM were providing source code in the 1960's under similar terms. 
VMS source code was available under limited licenses to customers 
from the beginning. Microsoft are catching up with 1960."
   --Alan Cox,  http://www2.usermagnet.com/cox/index.html