From: R. Dylan Stewart (rxs015500_at_utdallas.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 11:10:11 PST
Well, I just noticed an ommision in my post. Just as I hit send.
> It could be argued that compiling the source code of a
> program has the dual purpose of making it useable and
> preventing others from using your code, but that is a fairly
> flimsy argument. As I said above, since it has a dual
> purpose, it would be much harder to justify calling it an
> "access control".
The reason it wouldn't be entirely legal to decompile the code of the Newton
OS is that the source is still copyright Apple unless they explicitly made
it public domain. It's legal to look at copyrighted stuff, but not to
create derivitive works. You can explain what happened (for instance, a
plot summary of a book or the specification in my reverse engineering
example), but you can't distribute it, copy it, or base your own work on it.
Dylan Stewart AC5ZH
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 14:00:01 PST