Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!news@news.psc.edu From: peterb@hoopoe.psc.edu (Peter Berger) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX) Date: 08 May 1996 09:19:04 -0400 Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center Lines: 47 Sender: peterb@hoopoe.psc.edu Message-ID: <x7g29bxpyv.fsf@hoopoe.psc.edu> References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> <31866E12.67FD83BE@lambert.org> <4m8k99$o12@master.di.fc.ul.pt> <318978E8.14B8@vfr.interceptor.com> <4mmhcj$dfr@news1.halcyon.com> <31901BFD.7BAC@vfr.interceptor.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hoopoe.psc.edu In-reply-to: "Thumper!"'s message of Tue, 07 May 1996 20:58:53 -0700 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.0.15 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:23585 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:946 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3731 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3583 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:19189 comp.os.linux.advocacy:48999 In article <31901BFD.7BAC@vfr.interceptor.com> "Thumper!" <thumper@vfr.interceptor.com> writes: > > In general, this is incorrect. If you don't want someone to be able to > > legally reverse engineer your product, you've got to get them to > > contractually agree to not reverse engineer it. > > That would sadly imply that software is unprotectable. Commercial software, GNU, > GPL, etc, are meaningless, because it's therefore legal to take someone's product, > take it apart to see how it works, and then derive your own work partially, or even > entirely, from that work, and proceed to legally sell your own work. Bingo! Welcome to the Dirty Little Truth that GPL advocates don't like to talk about. It doesn't mean that "software is unprotectable." It means that software is only protectable to the extent it is copyrighted, patented, or protected by a contractual agreement. It's perfectly fine for me to take apart your product, see how it works, and then use the -information- I gather in my own product. Now, I can't -copy- your -expression- (ie, your source code) because that is protected by copyright. But I can certainly copy your ideas with impunity. > That would > also apply to hardware as well; just take apart an Intel CPU, make a copy, and > build your own. After all, why should patents offer protection that copyright > doesn't? Because the Government Said So. Intellectual property laws, Randroid fantasies notwithstanding, do not derive from natural law, but are a creation of the government for the purpose of benefitting society. The government could pass a law saying that only items which a covered in Blue silk are patentable, and it would be fine. > Consider this: a screenwirter writes a movie. Someone else takes his script, > reads the scripts, makes changes, and produces the movie. Is the screenwriter > entitled to anything? Only if the person who read the script copied the screenwriter's expression, as opposed to his ideas. Peter G. Berger, Esq. -- Pete Berger Coordinator, Regional Information Infrastructure Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center