Post by thread:reverse-engineering,

I'll have to side with Bob Blick and David VanHorn on this one. There are many legitimate reasons to reverse-engineer things, without stealing the code. In my youth I learned a great many programming tricks by studying other people's code, including object code when source was not available. But I have not stolen a single line of code from anyone else. While the prices that were advertised were generally too high for casual use, there are several devices I currently own that I would actually consider paying that kind of money just so that I would have the capability of making some small improvements. Keep in mind that (in the US) intellectual property law was established with the objective of promoting progress in the arts and sciences. There does not exist any natural right of ownership to ideas, but such a right was legally established with limited duration. The intent is that copyrighted works and patented apparatuses would eventually become public domain, increasing the wealth of information available to everyone. The time-limited right of ownership is intended to provide the carrot to the writer or inventor, when the alternative might be that works not be created, or be kept secret. However, by law I am allowed to study copyrighted works and patented devices, and create derivative works by making improvements or changes in order to better suit my needs. By doing so, I don't gain any additional rights to the underlying work. However, I am allowed (for instance) to buy a licensed copy, modify it, and resell it. The reason that I bring all this up is to point out that while code protection bits are obviously attractive to developers, they are actually contrary to the intent of intellectual property law, and to the benefits of society as a whole. When a device is created containing embedded firmware that is code-protected, the consumer is denied the opportunity to make changes or improvements. Also, while the copyright will eventually expire, the code will never be made available in a usable form, so for all practical intents, it will not actually enter the public domain. Given the duration of copyrights, and the rapid evolution of computers, this may seem rather pointless. But think about how it relates to other fields. Would you like to live in a world that had no classic literature or musical works in the public domain? And what if techniques similar to code protection could be used on other kinds of devices, such as automobiles? How would you like to buy a car with components that were impenetrable black boxes, that you couldn't open up, study, or replace (except with identical replacements from the original manufacturer)? That's exactly what code protection does to firmware, and yet most people automatically seem to think that it is a good idea. Note that the US Congress is currently working on legislation that will effectively make reverse engineering of software (and even some hardware) illegal. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act would criminalize any effort to defeat or even just study a "technological copyright protection system", and yet has only the most vague definition of what that is. Vendors will be free to implement nearly anything they want and call it a protection system. In case anyone is interested in this subject, and willing to contact your representatives about it, I've attached below a copy of some of my comments on this issue which were previously posted to slashdot.org. The base article was http://slashdot.org/articles/9804161058215.shtml Cheers, Eric Subject: more rights for copyright owners, less for users by Eric Smith (spam_OUTericTakeThisOuTbrouhaha.com) on Sunday May 17, @03:03 http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/ What this bill really does is to give copyright owners new, almost unlimited rights to control the ways in which their works are used, while at the same time taking away many of the rights that consumers used to have. In the past, if I bought a software package, I didn't own the actual program, but I had fairly clear rights to use it on one computer at any time and in any way I wanted. If I bought an audio CD, I didn't own the music, but I could listen to it whenever I wanted (with only some small exceptions for public performance). If I wanted to modfiy the software (or the music), I was free to do so. For instance, if I was ambitious I could add a new feature to the software, or fix a bug myself. I could run the music through filtering software to clean up noise, or just to make it sound different. As long as I didn't infringe the copyright by offering copies to others, I could basically do whatever I wanted to it. But this new bill will allow the copyright owners to make any arbitrary restrictions they want on the software (or music, or video, or whatever), and call it a copyright protection device. I will not be allowed to even attempt to circumvent these restrictions, no matter how arbitrary or silly they are. For example, a software publisher could supply a program with a dongle. It so happens that my Libretto portable computer does not have any built-in serial or parallel ports for a dongle, unless I plug it into a docking station. There is a program I use now that requires a dongle, and I have a third party program that eliminates the need for the dongle. I don't use this to defraud the publisher; I use it because the software would not be usable on my computer without it. But under the new bill, it would be illegal for the third party to sell me their program, or even to reverse engineer the dongle and write the program in the first place. Now let's suppose that the publisher doesn't want me to use the software on Tuesdays. Under current law, the only way he can do that is to make me sign a license agreement. Under the new law, he can simply make that part of his copyright protection system (be it a dongle or whatever), and he now has the force of law on his arbitary and silly restriction. Of course, nothing prevents the publisher from attempting to impose such a restriction today. He can build a dongle that does exactly that. But the key difference is that unless he gets me to sign a license agreement, it is entirely lawful for me to figure out how to circumvent the restriction. In essence, this bill gives vast new powers to copyright owners (and takes them away from consumers), far beyond what the Constitution authorized in Article I Section 8 Clause 8: "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Bear in mind that this clause of the Constitution and ratified treaties (including WIPO) are the only authorization that the government has for implementing copyrights at all. But this bill goes way beyond what WIPO required. The copyright law as it exists today (before this bill is signed into law) does an adequate job of protecting copyrights. While it is reasonable to make some minor changes to bring the US into compliance with WIPO, the real point of the bill is greed. If you'll notice, the Constitution didn't say "to guarantee that Authors and Inventors squeeze every possible dollar out of consumers," yet that is basically what this bill is about. It follows the Golden Rule of Arts and Sciences: He Who Has the Gold, Makes the Rules. It's too late to call your senators on this one, but please let your representatives know what you think about it.

In my youth I learned a great many programming tricks by studying other people's code, including object code when source was not available. While this more legal and perhaps more moral than stealing code, it's not really any more ethical. You have not paid to be taught, even if only by studying the internals that you were not meant to see. This is essentially the difference between patent, copyright, and trade secret, right? If my device contains an algorithm that can't be patented or copyright due to the funny ways that those laws work (ie can't patent algorithms!), then my only alternative is to make the algorithm a trade secret and protect it by the means available - any facility for getting around "standard means of protection" is a threat to my business, requiring cost increases and such if I want to start potting everything in epoxy or something. That said, I think perhaps "most" programmers won't mind people learning from their code, as long as you stay short of assorted forms of theft. But also I doubt that many people will spend $1000+ just to "learn some programming tricks." I've always felt that this is the differenece between artists and craftsmen. A true artist will happilly try to tell you how he creates his art, in hopes that you will be able to do so as well. A great artist will be saddened when no matter how much he helps, you just can't do it (since after all, you're not a great artist.) A craftsman, on the other hand, jealously guards rather petty techniques he regards as his, and a base craftsman will get pissed off when you manage to duplicate his feats, even if you did it on your own... BillW

At 12:49 AM 29/05/98 -0000, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>I wrote: >> In my youth I learned a great many programming tricks by studying other >> people's code, including object code when source was not available. > >William Chops Westfield <billwKILLspamCISCO.COM> replied: >> While this more legal and perhaps more moral than stealing code, it's not >> really any more ethical. You have not paid to be taught, even if only by >> studying the internals that you were not meant to see. > >I beg to differ about the ethics. If I want to build toasters I can borrow >a friend's book on toasters. Or I can take apart his toaster and examine how >it works. I haven't paid to be taught in either case, nor have I invested >the engineering effort necessary to build a toaster from scratch. In the >first case, the writer of the book didn't make any money teaching me about >toasters. In the second, the manufacturer of the toaster wasn't paid to >teach me about it. I doubt that you will claim that either approach is >unethical (assuming I have my friend's permission), yet that seems to be the >standard you are applying to software. > >Historically in the US, it has been considered lawful (and presumably ethical) >to study other manufacturers devices. This encourages progress, and is >precisely the point of the patent system. > >Cheers, >Eric > > Eric analogy is a bit flawed in the Toaster department, the written of the book would have been paid, in any which case there is nothing wrong. On the other had pulling apart the friends Toaster (Bad move, I would get angry if I could not have my Toast and Vegimite in the mornings), will only show you one possible solution on how to build a Toaster, it can not be guaranteed that this Toaster is not free from defects, nor is the best possible solution. We as engineers will quite often look at how someone else has solved the problem, or what possible design errors have been introduced, its called Learning or Information Gathering. This then brings up the question of ethics and Law (This I will not enter into). But to give you an idea of what does go on in the Learning or Information Gathering process: The first few new models of any car made are often brought by other car makers. One goes to the test track (Handling, performance, endurance reliability and the sort). One goes to the sales / marketing / aesthetic group (How does it look, why would people buy it, what options safety features does it have etc.) Two go to the engineering department (Now what do those blokes / girls do with it?) If the fellas at the test track crash the car, then the sales / marketing / aesthetic group loose out! Dennis PS. Why would there not be a PIC in a Nuclear weapon? These devices where around before they where owned by Microchip, you never know what might be inside a squirrel!! -=====================================================================- Dennis Plunkett: Embedded Hardware, Software design NEC Australia DRMASS Line Interface cards TRX software ISDN interface card ph 03 9264-3867 -=====================================================================-

Dennis Plunkett <.....dennisKILLspam.....RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> wrote: > Eric analogy is a bit flawed in the Toaster department, the written of the > book would have been paid, in any which case there is nothing wrong. On the Ah, but I deliberately stated that I borrowed the book from my friend. The line of reasoning that BillW proposed was that if I took apart something and studied it, I hadn't paid to be educated. Well, if I borrow the book I haven't paid to be educated either. The author sold one book to my friend, but he hasn't sold one to me. Therefore, by BillW's reasoning I don't have the right to learn from the book and build my own toaster. This is, of course, exactly the sort of reasoning that publishers have tried to advance on multiple occassions in the past in attempt to ban libraries or at least put serious restrictions on them. Congress hasn't been dumb enough to fall for it, at least in the case of books. In the case of software, Congress did make lending and rental illegal, except in the case of game cartridges. Quite ironic, since Nintendo was one of the companies trying to get the law passed. I have no idea why game cartridges should be treated differently than any other software. However, I also don't understand why software should be treated differently than books. If I'm allowed to lend or rent you a book I've purchased, why shouldn't I be allowed to lend or rent you a software package I've purchased? Of course, I'm not allowed to keep a photocopy of the book while I lend it to you, and neither should I be allowed to keep a copy of the software (in memory, on my hard disk, on CD-ROM, or whereever) while I lend it out. I probably could find a use for a PIC in a toaster. I wouldn't want to make the toaster too smart, however. Red Dwarf fans have seen the result of that mistake. :-) Cheers, Eric