Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1199 gnu.misc.discuss:634 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jb3o+ From: jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Reverse engineering, piracy, etc. (was GNUclear Warfare) Message-ID: Date: 22 Dec 89 05:02:40 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 Organization: Class of '92, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 123 In-Reply-To: rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes: > 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). Well, once put that way, i would say that i haven't read or heard that rms "reverse engineered" the symbolics code - for he implemented it his own way - he simply made it do that same thing that theirs did. > Note that pirating a BIOS requires copying ROMs. This requires > equipment that the average user doesn't have. Well, last time i checked (about 2 or 3 years ago), you could get an eprom burner and software (deluxe version) for $150 from ads in Computer Shopper. Plugged right into your Apple // and the software would copy the rom into memory (or onto disk) and you could then burn as many eproms as you wanted from it. I was even there once when a copy of ibm bios was made for a man who didn't want phoenix bios - the pirateeer kept a copy for himself (burned, of course) and a copy on disk for future use. > Yes, and various companies have done so (Lotus in particular has > been starting multi-million dollar suits for copyright infringement). good for them. > 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. this is true of most human activities. > Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think that this is a widely held attitude. Very *few* people feel that way. In fact, take a look at the polls of people in terms of whether or not they support the panama invasion - that was definitely *wrong* but since, in their opinion, Noreiga was asking for it, it was ok. I find it hard to sympathize with those companies that consistently break the law (or even stretch the law) and them complain about being ripped off. > 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. Well, that is your perogative. Taking even 3 or 4 years would make it seem like you would have to be *quite* the visionary in order to see a successful piece of software (for in 2 or 3 years, the hardware itself will be outdated). > 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. You probably have more experience with this than i do, so i defer to your (assumed) greater expertise. > 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. Well, then why would you submit these to the public domain? Other than in the hopes that others would like them and find them useful (something you claim that they will not be, i believe). I am talking about a program that serves a particular purpose, granted, but written with the full intention of submitting a truly useful program to the public domain - not simply, hey here's something i used once in a blue moon, whadda think? This is the kind of software that peter says he finds rampant in the public domain. apparently, he doesn't find it too useful, either. > 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!). different strokes for different folks. > 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. I would count the user interface and extra features (or documented bugs :-) ) as part of the "well-done" or truly useful. A truly useful word processor allows more than simply inserting and deleting text, even though this may be all *you* need. I finally saw a truly well-done interface on a program copier the other day. It was for the Apple //GS and was written by some hackers/pirates in France. It looked so good, i thought it was a game at first. It is true that most utilities i have seen are more of the quick and dirty types without great user interfaces....which is too bad. > Anton > > +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ > | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | > +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank | R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS| disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me