[License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[thufir]

On 2015-03-04 07:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote:
> Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses 
> including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of 
> distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely 
> sure, that none of these open source licenses requires to allow 
> reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable 
> programs and that particularly even the LGPL-v2 does not require 
> reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs.

I don't understand where you're coming from.  For the sake of argument, 
let's say that the above holds, and LGPL v2 allows reverse engineering.  
Cui bono?  Who benefits?

"...companies are not able to protect these ‘private’ programs against 
revealing the embedded business relevant secrets..."

So, if the company doesn't link to LGPL'ed software, then they're 
protected from having their binary reverse engineered?

I suppose the competitors of the original company would benefit from 
such a scenario, provided they wanted to reverse engineer the first 
companies software.  For the sake of argument, this is being accepted as 
fact.

How does *not* linking against LGPL'ed libraries *protect* the company 
from having their product reverse engineered?  Surely some software, 
sometimes, gets reverse engineered -- legally.  By what mechanism would 
*avoiding* LGPL'ed libraries prevent reverse engineering?

Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows.  I think 
the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're coming 
from, or at least what your concern is.  Again, what is the mechanism by 
which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse engineering?


-Thufir