http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660Mark, At the same time, working from x86 assembler is "having the code", no? I doesn't work that way. http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment7http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment7Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:50:48 GMTI have to challenge the contention that using Reflector is reverse engineering. I think it is translation, from IL to (Pick your .NET lang here). You *do* have the actual source code the CLR will compile to byte-code. I don't see the fact that you are using a mnemonic aid to convert from one language construct to another mitigating your knowledge of how the source in question works. On the other hand, if you were to take the published specs, and poke known values at the functions and record the responses to validate the specs / document spec violations & undocumented functions, and then build your own function to reproduce the same effects, then *that* would be reverse engineering. (Gee, sound familiar for the Mono team?) Possibly working from the byte code backward as well. http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment6http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment6Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:42:30 GMTThe beauty of Microsoft's move is that is doesn't matter if you read the source code or not: http://dotmad.blogspot.com/2007/10/tainted-if-you-do-tainted-if-you-dont.html http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment5http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment5Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:47:25 GMTJeremy: so, MS is stupid because they force their employees not to look at any OSS code which is GPL-ed ? If it's not such a big deal to look at code, why bother? http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment4http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment4Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:23:56 GMT> You either violate their copyright by producing a work of enough similarity, or you don't. You seem to be confusing the case of a patent vs. copyright. If you didn't have access to the source (reflector may count as having access to the source, not sure), you are NOT violating copyright even if you produce 1:1 result with what they have, right down to the comments and spacing. What you are talking about are patents, where you can be violating that regardless of how you got there. > I challenge anyone arguing against viewing the source to also argue against using Reflector, Different semantics, one is having access to the code, the second is reverse engineering it. As I said, this is a legal distinction, but an important one. http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment3http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment3Fri, 05 Oct 2007 17:07:43 GMTThe real problem with looking at the MS source isn't as much the fear of copyright violation (as long as you don't copy/paste) as it's the fear of being tainted by a patented method. If you've never seen the source, you can at least claim to have independently implemented the same process. This doesn't entirely patent-proof yourself, but it gives you a leg to stand on. http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment2http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment2Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:34:04 GMT"Even assuming that you did not copy & paste the code from there, it can still be said that you are in violation of their copyright because you have residual knowledge from looking at the code." You have some interesting laws in your country, because that statement certainly doesn'y apply in numerous other places. You can't violate their copyright just by looking at their code. You can only violate their copyright by reproducing the copyrighted work, in whole, in part, or even with just enough similarity, in a manner that is not covered by any type of fair use or appropriate license. You either violate their copyright by producing a work of enough similarity, or you don't. It is as simple as that. How you produced the work doesn't matter. Whether or not you read the source doesn't matter. Whether or not you looked at Reflector doesn't matter. I challenge anyone arguing against viewing the source to also argue against using Reflector, as use of either puts you in just as equal a position to be in violation of a copyright. Which, incidentally, is in no better or worse position to be in violation of a copyright than if you _neither_ used Reflector or viewed the source. Get your arguments aligned or be labeled a hypocrite. http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment1http://ayende.com/2835/patents-trademarks-and-copyright-urgh#comment1Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:53:55 GMT