[3399] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Binary Driver Issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (shaggenbunsenburner)
Sat Jun 22 11:00:51 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 10:52:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: shaggenbunsenburner <shagboy@thecia.net>
Reply-To: shagboy@thecia.net
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net>
cc: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, Mike Kilburn <mike@lserv.conexio.co.za>,
linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960621010739.15516k-100000@inorganic5.chem.ufl.edu>
On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Jon Lewis wrote:
> > with the core kernel code itself. A licensor only has rights over their
> > own code. When you buy a development kit from Microsoft you're paying
> > for the information on how the O/S works. If you figure it out without the docs
> > or the kit they cant stop you from selling or using it because they didnt get
> > their fee.
>
> There are precedents that state the opposite. Stac, makers of Stacker,
> lost part of a suit with MS, that involved their reverse engineering part
> of the boot up sequence of DOS that enabled fairly seemless integration
> of Stacker with DOS.
That's because "reverse engineering" is expressly forbidden by the
license. If you figure out the API, however, they can't do a thing.
Now, whether or not you're reverse engineering when you just "learn" the
API is debatable, but the two examples above are not the same thing.
shag
Judd Bourgeois | When we are planning for posterity,
shagboy@thecia.net | we ought to remember that virtue is
Finger for PGP key | not hereditary. Thomas Paine
