🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gq0meB16w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:

   mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
   > In article <gcJJeB14w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible
   > 
   >    No, but you get to watch the computer perform the task, just as you get
   >    to watch the plumber perform the task.  You can take notes on how the
   >    software behaves, write books explaining it, tell your friends how to
   >    perform the same tasks with their software, even create your own competing
   >    software product to do the same things.
   > 
   > Does this extend to watching the complete contents of memory as the
   > program executes?

   Yes.

Do I get to take notes (and then use them, "creating my own competing
software product to do the same things") like the following:

"Hmm, let's see, here are the contents of memory...all I need to do is
load these values into the right places, and then point the PC at the
beginning, and it will work right.  Hey, I've even used a disassembler
and/or a decompiler, and I understand why all these opcodes have the
right effect.  All I have to do is write a program to put all these
numbers in memory, and then set up the PC appropriately."

Now, if I did that with, say, Microsoft Excel, I suspect they would
sue me for copyright infringement faster than you can say "GNU General
Public License".

   >                    Do I get to make whatever use I can of the
   > information I so obtain?

   Yes, although obviously you can't copy any bits of it which are copyright
   material.

Ah.  So we *did* cover that.  Well, the whole point is that there
isn't any "although obviously" with a plumber.  I can take *absolutely
everything* I learn from the plumber and use it.  With copyrighted
software, I cannot.  As a result, there is a free market in plumbing,
and not in software.

   This is one of the techniques for reverse engineering.  Whilst some people
   think it should be illegal, and the EC has made a few token attempts to
   try and prevent it when pressurized by IBM and others, it is generally
   still done.  And I think it's perfectly legitimate.

I contend that the difference between reverse engineering and
copyright violation is merely one of degree.

	-mib