|| ||Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>|
|| ||"Nemosoft Unv." <nemosoft-AT-smcc.demon.nl>|
|| ||Re: The return of PWC|
|| ||Mon, 02 May 2005 18:45:02 +0100|
|| ||Greg Kroah <greg-AT-kroah.com>, luc-AT-saillard.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
On Llu, 2005-05-02 at 01:29, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, that code has been reverse compiled (I would not
> even call it "reverse engineered"), and is simply illegal. Maybe not in
> every country, but certainly in some. There are still some intellectual
> property rights being violated here, you know, and I'm surprised at the
> contempt you and Linux kernel maintainers show in this regard for a few
> lines of the law.
Reverse engineering in the EU for compatibility is legal. It was done in
the EU. Linux exists because the law is sensible and allows such
actions, its the same reason you aren't still buying all your flush
toilets from Thomas Crapper & Son.
> Now don't get started on "it was GPL code before you left bla bla" or "you
> should not have abonded the project bla bla blah" and "this court here has
> ruled reverse engineering is allowed and so on mumble mumble".
Don't like facts ? The legal position on reverse engineering is in
general fairly clear. What you describe might not be. If so then we need
to find someone who hasn't read the code to rewrite it from the
algorithm description of the current code. Shouldn't take more than a
[Its the difference between disassembling the code and publishing a form
of the disassembly and writing a new implementation of the algorithm.
One is copyright violation the other is reverse engineering]
> Anyway, I'll inform my contacts at Philips tomorrow. I don't know how they
> will react; maybe they'll go nuts, maybe they'll let it pass quitely; it's
I *am* concerned by your comments about how the reverse work may have
been done, and whether proper process was followed. I'd be greatful if
you would forward me your contact at Philips too. You are considered as
having an axe to grind and I'd rather discussion occurred between
Philips and the Linux community than via yourself.
You've also said yourself that the NDA you had was expired so the
previous lack of a GPL module is your personal agenda and nothing to do
with anyone else. That makes me wonder what your real goal is.
to post comments)