Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!dftsrv!ames!lll-tis!daitc!jmorton
From: jmorton@daitc.daitc.mil (Joe Morton)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Reverse Engineering (Was Re: block copy & VAX MOVC)
Keywords: copyright
Message-ID: <192@daitc.daitc.mil>
Date: 3 Oct 88 22:14:12 GMT
References: <2220003@hpausla.HP.COM> <46500026@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <359@wucs1.wustl.edu>
Reply-To: jmorton@daitc.daitc.mil.UUCP (Joe Morton)
Organization: Defense Applied Information Technology Center, Alexandria VA
Lines: 17

In article <359@wucs1.wustl.edu> jps@wucs1.UUCP (James Sterbenz) writes:
>Much of IBM source code is liscenced, in which case (assuming you're
>liscenced for the code you're using) there's nothing wrong with looking
>at, modifying, and making suggestions for improvement of code.
>
>If, on the other hand, you've disassembled an OCO (object code only)
>program, that might be another matter.

I'm not familiar with IBM lingo beyond the PC.  Is reverse
engineering (which is how I interpreted the second statement) a no-no
in this case?  At this level, is the algorithm expressed in the object
code still copyrightable or otherwise protected by law?

If this is the wrong group to be asking these questions, I'm open to
suggestions.

Joe Morton - jmorton@daitc.daitc.mil.UUCP