Does "modification" include translation to another HLL?

[Rod Dixon]

Hmm...I doubt that the puzzle can be solved by switching from read to
examine.  If you copy the work and the work is copyright-protected,
telling a judge that instead of "reading" the work, you "examined" it is
not going to work. You could try to dodge the bullet by looking for cover
under reverse engineering, but doing so in this case is why copyright
holders have tried to deconstruct the deconstructor. Reverse engineering
is not a license to copy and the facts we are discussing do not show why
it is relevant.

BTW, the DMCA safeguards reverse engineering under section 1201(f). The
argument is not that the DMCA does not protect reverse engineering, but
that it does not do so adequately.

Rod Dixon


On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, John Cowan wrote:

> Rod Dixon wrote:
>
> > Hence, John's second
> > fact pattern switched from an inquiry concerning authorization to create a
> > derivative work to a question of whether the Perl program was
> > independently created (i.e. original to that author). In my opinion,
> > John's hypo is just as likely to lead to litigation as the one he was
> > responding to since "reading" the program could be circumstantial evidence
> > of copying.
>
>
> Yes, of course.  Instead of "read" I should have said "examine".
> If I observe what your program does and write an equivalent program,
> I do not infringe you (unless the ever-irritating DCMA gets into
> the act: it forbids some kinds of reverse engineering).
>
>
> --
> Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
>     the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
> during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>     in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
>
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3