[24492] in Cypherpunks
DDJ editorial
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Harry Bartholomew)
Sat Dec 24 07:44:42 1994
From: bart@netcom.com (Harry Bartholomew)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 04:36:07 -0800 (PST)
I think this sentence was missing a NOT:
If, as some claim and RSA disputes, the
code was reverse-engineered from object files in off-the-shelf software,
then the law was probably broken - unless RSA and other vendors decide to
test the strength of highly questionable and likely unenforceable
shrink-wrap licenses that try to prohibit disassembly/decompilation.
(But I don't have the DDJ to verify this)
