[License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[thufir]

On 2015-03-07 08:03 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> thufir scripsit:
>
>> 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?
> The terms of the license, to be sure.  Many proprietary licenses require
> you to give up the right to reverse engineer the software in order to
> obtain the right to use the software at all.  The statement "Reverse
> engineering is legal" is not equivalent to "A license requirement not
> to reverse engineer is void", any more than the freedom of speech means
> that non-disclosure agreements are void.  We can contract out of our
> rights to do all sorts of things, and do so daily.
>


Well, I stand corrected.  The book of knowledge (wikipedia) says:

Reverse engineering of computer software 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software> in the US often falls 
under both contract law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law> as a 
breach of contract <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract> as 
well as any other relevant laws. This is because most EULA 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA>'s (end user license agreement) 
specifically prohibit it, and U.S. courts have ruled that if such terms 
are present, they override the copyright law which expressly permits it 
(see /Bowers v. Baystate Technologies 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies>/^[29] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#cite_note-29> ^[30] 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#cite_note-30> ).


It was my understanding that contract law couldn't prohibit this. Ok, 
well now I understand the concern :)

I don't think it's necessary to write a PDF about it, but, still, 
interesting.  IMHO this is bad policy, a bad law, but there you are.  
Did this change at one point?  I thought that reverse engineering was 
found to be legal, at least in the US?  And this Bowers v Baystate set a 
precedent where it could be prohibited!?

Not good.

I'd hoped, and believed, that reverse engineering would always be legal, 
provided you jump through the requisite hoops.



-Thufir