[License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[thufir]

On 2015-03-06 03:30 PM, thufir wrote:
> "For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that
> Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL 
> libraries until
> I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse 
> engineering." 

Admittedly, I have no idea how to parse that sentence and lost interest 
at that point.  First off, it doesn't matter what LGPL has to say about, 
because, at least in the U.S.A., reverse engineering is legal:

'Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act> (17 
U.S.C. § 1201 (f) 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html>) 
says that a person who is in legal possession of a program, is permitted 
to reverse-engineer and circumvent its protection if this is necessary 
in order to achieve "interoperability"'  -wikipedia

So, even if the LGPL prevents, or allows, reverse engineering, it 
doesn't matter, because reverse engineering is legal.  No license can 
make reverse engineering illegal.  So why this person cares what the 
license says is confusing.  It doesn't matter what the license says 
about reverse engineering (not that I think it says anything on the topic).

Secondly, the sentence itself makes no sense, at least to me.  How can 
the LGPL "require" reverse engineering?  Meaning that anyone using the 
library is then required to reverse engineer it?  Or cannot?  The 
sentence makes no sense itself to me.

"This license requires that anyone using the software reverse engineer 
it."  Nope, makes no sense; although I suppose you could require that 
anyone using the library stand on their head(?).  The negation of that 
sentence, that reverse engineering of the license is prohibited, at 
least makes sense, but just doesn't matter -- because reverse 
engineering software is legal.  So the person making the statement is 
either raising non-issues or is unaware of the legality of reverse 
engineering (to be charitable).

Maybe they mean "anyone forking this library is required to first 
reverse engineer this library" is just absurd, but, maybe that's what 
the concern is...?  What is their actual concern?


-Thufir