Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:597 alt.religion.computers:1179 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!rang From: rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: Reverse engineering, piracy, etc. (was GNUclear Warfare) Message-ID: Date: 20 Dec 89 17:21:34 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> <1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1989Dec13.213445.13639@world.std.com>, <4757@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ij Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu Organization: UW-Madison CS department Lines: 91 In-reply-to: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 19 Dec 89 17:04:06 GMT In article <4ZXac6_00WY7M=p5Y7@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: >While you claim that he did not reverse engineer the software (which >is contrary to what i have heard and read - why not ask rms himself? i >think i will), other than a legal technicality, i can't see what the >difference is. The basic difference is that in one case, the *functionality* of the software is being duplicated. In the other (what I've usually heard referred to as "reverse engineering"), the *implementation* is being duplicated. If you know a lawyer in copyright/patent law, you might check with them (I probably will over break). >Actually, that's not quite true. Some people pirate BIOS so that they >can get them for their PCs without having to pay for them. Note that pirating a BIOS requires copying ROMs. This requires equipment that the average user doesn't have. >That well may be - if so, then you should take it up with the >management of the corporations Yes, and various companies have done so (Lotus in particular has been starting multi-million dollar suits for copyright infringement). >However, if it is true, then i find it hard to believe >that software companies too would be immune It's entirely possible that some software companies do pirate others' software. There are others which don't. There are non-software companies which don't, too. >thus i can find no >reason to sympathise with them when their software gets pirated in turn. Two wrongs don't make a right. >Why is it that you think it [MSWord] would have taken 20 years? If I could work fulltime on it, I could probably do it within 3-5 years. Maybe. A word processor is a complicated piece of machinery, when it incorporates page layout, table management, etc. I haven't written a WYSIWYG word processor yet, either, so would probably make a false start or two. At a rough guess, designing the user interface would take 6 months, writing the manual 6 months, polishing loose ends 3-6 months (i.e. user testing), and thorough debugging 6 months. This leaves perhaps a year to write the program, on a 3-year schedule. Maybe 20 years was a bit of an exaggeration, but if I weren't getting paid for it, I wouldn't be spending 40-60 hours a week on it, either. >Even if you got 3 people to work on it, it would take a long time - in >fact, it could well take longer It's unlikely it would take longer (in real time) on a project which is reasonably large (like this). 3 people isn't so many that management becomes a problem. >> Sure, I write free software from time to time. But I don't usually >> spend the time to write user manuals, add in features which aren't >> likely to be used by me or my friends, etc. > >Why not? There's a very simple reason: I write these programs to save me time (this is one major reason I use computers). If I try to think of everything anyone might want in them, and implement that, they're not saving me time any more. If I need some graphics for a paper which is due in a week, spending more than a week writing a graphics program is counterproductive. >Do you normally write sloppy letters to your friends or relatives? No, and I don't write sloppy code either. On the other hand, when writing to a friend, I don't mention everything which has happened in my life, either--just the things which probably interest them (otherwise my letters would be far too long and never get done!). >Just because you are not paid doesn't mean you *shouldn't* do the >best job you are capable of doing. I agree, and I do. When I write a utility, it's programmed as well as I can do it. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has a polished user interface, or that it has lots of extra features. It just means that what it does, it does well. Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+