Re: Switching to the OSL License, in a dual way.

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 09:46:28PM +0200, Leandro Guimar?es Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:23:22 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > They tend to have the view "if you are being
> > a jerk and locking people into your application with no way to get at
> > their data, then of course reverse engineering is allowed, how else are
> > people to get at their data?  On the other hand, if you are being nice
> > and you provide documented ways for people to get at their data then
> > reverse engineering is not allowed".  Which seems to make sense, right?
> 
> 	No.  Reverse engineering is first a way of learning, then a
> safeguard... 

It's not clear to me that you have the right to learn how something
works if the producer of that something doesn't want you to learn it.
You seem to think differently, the laws don't seem to agree with you.

> 	Perhaps you are claiming the definition of protocols and data
> structures as protected by copyright.  Perhaps, but it doesn't make
> cloning less moral.  Laws and morals unfortunately are splitting
> farther and farther.

Perhaps that is because people who share your opinions can't seem to
understand that reverse engineering / copying is much easier than creating
in the first place and the people who spent the money on the creation need
to recoup that investment and make some profit so they can create again.

Maybe the warning bells should be ringing because your statements
are all about your "right" copying other people's work (I think it is
called plagerizing in some fields) rather than about creating new work.
If you spent less time copying and more time creating then we would be
following you rather then you attempting to (illegally) follow us.
Food for thought, dinner is served, eat up.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm