Xref: utzoo rec.music.synth:17190 comp.sys.apple2:8551 comp.sys.amiga:71807 comp.sys.mac.misc:5818 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3738 misc.legal:22655
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!ipsun.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Do *NOT* reveal or mention "hacking" information (was Re: paper clip trick)
Message-ID: <1990Nov15.172428.14527@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 Nov 90 17:24:28 GMT
References: <1990Nov14.225343.4867@isis.cs.du.edu> <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <1339@bbxsda.UUCP>
Sender: news@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov (USENET File Owner)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Lines: 70

In article <1339@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>In article <1990Nov15.000626.25016@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> stevo@uniblab.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Groom) writes:
>>They may continue to say
>>that the software falls under the category of "Trade Secret", and
>>that attempting to reverse-engineer or alter the software may not only
>>be a violation of the license, but also grounds for civil action.
>
>"Trade secrets" are kept in safe place.  They are *not* distributed
>to the public.  You can't make something available to anyone who
>wants to hand over some money and then convince a judge that it was
>a "trade secret".  You can call it a trade secret until your face
>turns blue but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

"Trade secrets" *are* kept in a safe place, products based on trade secrets
*are* distributed to the public. When protecting an invention, a company has
basically 3 choices. Patent it, copyright it, or keep it as a trade secret.
Which of the 3 choices is appropriate for software is still very much
a debatible subject.
For a discussion on software patents, see the October 1990 issue (i think)
of Dr. Dobbs Journal. In order for an invention to remain a trade secret, the
company must take *reasonable* means to insure that the secret is not revealed.
This generally entails both a copy protection scheme and a license agreement.
The copy protection provides a reasonable level of security for the trade secret
and the license agreement is a legal document stating that *you* as the user agree
to not reveal/divulge the trade secret in return for being allowed to use the
product which is based on the trade secret. These agreements are common in 
transferring technology as "secrecy" or "non-disclosure" agreements.
Breaking of the copy protection is generally in violation of the license
agreement and is considered "breach of contract" and can be prosecuted in a civil court.
Reverse engineering and/or distribution of an illegally copied "copy protected"
software package can be considered industrial espionage and be prosecuted in
a criminal court.

>
>Most of the "agreements" affixed to software are boilerplate
>efforts that may or may not be meaningful in some extreme cases
>(where a prosecuter may go overboard in interpreting the agreement).

Nope, at the very least, the "agreement" is a legal contract between you
and the software producer. Violation of that agreement is, at a minimum,
considered breach of contract (in the absence of extenuating circumstances).

True, the software company *can* put anything they want into such an agreement,
but in general, the company is smart enough to exclude any clauses that
would not hold up in court.

>
>Most people would agree that handing out a copy of the software (or
>any derivation of the software) to someone else is illegal.
>

yep, I will agree with you there.

Perhaps the best way to get around a copy protection scheme is to not buy
software that has it. Basically boycott any company that uses a copy protection
scheme.


Back to the original thread. Distribution of "cracking" information is not specifically
illegal. The morality/immorality of it is questionable and depends on your code
of ethics.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but do have *some* experience with inventions and
            maintaining rights to an invention. These are My views and do not 
            reflect the views of my employers.

John Burton
(jcburt@cs.wm.edu)
(jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov)