Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!jfh
From: jfh@killer.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,alt.flame,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Smalltalk/V Decompiler
Message-ID: <1892@killer.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Oct-87 15:55:58 EST
Article-I.D.: killer.1892
Posted: Fri Oct 23 15:55:58 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 11:41:43 EST
References: <2490@mmintl.UUCP> <57@ateng.UUCP>
Organization: Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers
Lines: 65
Xref: hoptoad comp.lang.smalltalk:364 alt.flame:331 misc.legal:2992
Summary: Are you sure he didn't violate the license?

In article <57@ateng.UUCP>, chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> In article <2490@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
> >
> >I recently posted an article offering to send my Smalltalk/V [TM] decompiler
> >to anyone who wanted it.  I have since been contacted by Digitalk, who
> >threatened to take me to court if I proceeded.
> 
> What pomposity and arrogance!
> 
> I think that I will refrain from buying Digitalk products until they stop
> threatening bright, imaginative people with legal action because they are
> going to reveal how a widely disseminated product works.
> 
> There is no question of violation of contract here.  Mr. Adams simply
> examined carefully the program he purchased, and he was about to assist
> the great body of Digitalk users by sharing the results of his examination.
> How sad that Digitalk wants to restrain their users in this way.
> 
> I think that today's big winner is Softsmarts ...
> 
> -- 
> Chip Salzenberg         "chip@ateng.UUCP"  or  "{uunet,usfvax2}!ateng!chip"

I am a part-time software consultant who actually makes money from the work
I do on the side.  For this reason, I am very sensitive to claims concerning
copyrighted and licensed software.

Most of us independent types use the money we make on the side (least ways
the ones I know) to buy extra little things.  Stealing the work we do robs
us of the finer things in life, like getting the car fixed.

Someone owns the products in question, in this case Digitalk and their share
holders.  Producing a product that is illegally produced is stealing money
from the owners of the original product.

When Chip writes "There is no question of violation of contract here.  Mr.
Adams simply examined carefully the program he purchased, ..." I wonder
how Mr. Adams carefully examined the program.  Did he read the documentation?
I doubt it.  If Digitalk had published the documentation on the output file
format, I think they would know better than to threaten suit for someone
using that information.  Maybe he examined it with a disassembler?

Most software is copyrighted.  This copyright grants only certain rights to
the user, in the case of software, usually only the right to load the
program into memory to be executed.  Loading a program into memory to be
disassembled is not permitted in that case.  Even still, many of the
licenses I have seen expressly forbid reverse engineering a piece of
software by whatever means.  So, once again Mr. Adams in all likelyhood
had no business with his nose being where it was.

Perhaps Digitalk feels Mr. Adams could not have legally produced his work.
I would guess that Mr. Adams disagrees, supposing he actually didn't do
anything illegal.  In that case, it would be a matter for the courts to
decide, and not one for us to accuse Digitalk of being wrong.

If anyone on this net were to steal from me, I would surely do my best to
have their ass.  Theft is theft, whether or not a physical object is
involved.

- John.
-- 
John F. Haugh II		HECI Exploration Co. Inc.
UUCP:	...!ihnp4!killer!jfh	11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600
"Don't Have an Oil Well?"	Dallas, TX. 75243
" ... Then Buy One!"		(214) 231-0993