BB+ on the matter

[rodolfoleoni]

..........

Here is my basic understanding:
1. It is always legal to reverse engineer software for purely educational purposes.
2. It is always legal to reverse engineer software to provide binary compatiblity with software interfaces exposed by the product. MS-DOS was reverse engineered, for instance, by more than one company and they won the court battle.

There are many kinds of reverse engineering that are definitely illegal.
Exactly what these are and where the line is that you cannot cross, I do not know.

It is a complicated subject.

That's quite interesting. I wonder if their disassembling to just watch into the code and to understand it could be considered "for educational purposes". In my opinion the key to interprete the fact could be what they did with the reverse code. It seems relevant to know if they cloned the engine with just some modifications, or if they made something different but with the same ideas from Rybka.

[mhull]

George Lucas figures out clever ways to make fun movies. He does not teach the things he learns to other theatre companies. Did his movies make no contribution to society?

Check out the special features section of your DVDs. All is revealed there. They can't help themselves. In fact, they're more proud of their process than the end product, which is usually a turkey.

Oh, I've seen those. But there is a big difference between showing what you did compared to the fine details of how you did it.

If they are trade secrets, then they aren't contributions since nobody else can benefit from them.

[Don]

George Lucas figures out clever ways to make fun movies. He does not teach the things he learns to other theatre companies. Did his movies make no contribution to society?

Check out the special features section of your DVDs. All is revealed there. They can't help themselves. In fact, they're more proud of their process than the end product, which is usually a turkey.

Oh, I've seen those. But there is a big difference between showing what you did compared to the fine details of how you did it.

If they are trade secrets, then they aren't contributions since nobody else can benefit from them.

Except for people who need stronger programs that is.

[Dann Corbit]

George Lucas figures out clever ways to make fun movies. He does not teach the things he learns to other theatre companies. Did his movies make no contribution to society?

Check out the special features section of your DVDs. All is revealed there. They can't help themselves. In fact, they're more proud of their process than the end product, which is usually a turkey.

Oh, I've seen those. But there is a big difference between showing what you did compared to the fine details of how you did it.

If they are trade secrets, then they aren't contributions since nobody else can benefit from them.

Except for people who need stronger programs that is.

Put another way:
There are many ways to benefit from something.
I can benefit by simply seeing it (art, for example)
I can benefit by using something (public transportation, for example)
I can benefit by learning something (reading at the public library, for example)
I can benefit by teaching something (teaching the underpriveleged Seattle youth in the UPWARD BOUND program, for example)
I can benefit by seeing a mistake, and hence avoiding the same thing myself.
I can benefit by improving my attitude.
I can benefit by improving my health.
I can benefit by public service to the community (it is not only the recipient that is blessed, but even more so the donor)
I can benefit myself and others by working on a public software project.
I can solve people's business problems by working on a commercial software project.

Everyone knows this. I didn't have to say it.

[rodolfoleoni]

The opinion I'm having about R3-Ippo stuff is that Vas had right to keep his code secret, so they somehow violated some trade secrets, if they really performed a reverse engineering.

The second opinion I'm having is there's no proof that the secret violation was followed by a cloning of the original product.

Guilty of reverse engineriing, innocent of cloning.

Well, just opinions.

[Don]

The opinion I'm having about R3-Ippo stuff is that Vas had right to keep his code secret, so they somehow violated some trade secrets, if they really performed a reverse engineering.

The second opinion I'm having is there's no proof that the secret violation was followed by a cloning of the original product.

Guilty of reverse engineriing, innocent of cloning.

Well, just opinions.

You won't get consensus on any of these issues I'm afraid.

[Dann Corbit]

The opinion I'm having about R3-Ippo stuff is that Vas had right to keep his code secret, so they somehow violated some trade secrets, if they really performed a reverse engineering.

The second opinion I'm having is there's no proof that the secret violation was followed by a cloning of the original product.

Guilty of reverse engineriing, innocent of cloning.

Well, just opinions.

You won't get consensus on any of these issues I'm afraid.

Here is the problem that I see in this sort of thing:
We have partial information, furnished by secondary sources.
From this information we seem to want do decide whether or not people are reprehensible criminals.
Since we don't have the full body of facts, since we are not experts in software law, since we do not have legal powers to collect more information or legal powers to decide upon the meaning of the facts...
I think that making decisions about the character of others and pronouncing them in public is every bit as questionable as the activities discussed.

Were we somehow entitled to the information and were we somehow empowered to make decisions as to the outcomes and were we to be in full possession of the facts then it would be peachy-creamy to do so and probably a protection for the forum.

But lacking these things, let's not pretent we can make sensible decisions based on a handful of hearsay and our own jaundiced opinions.

Not that we can't form our own feelings about things (and I imagine that most persons, including myself, do form these opinions). But I don't think we should state them here as though they were facts, since the reputation of others is in the balance. We should afford them the same courtesy we would want afforded to us if our character were to be smudged.

IMO-YMMV

[mhull]

Except for people who need stronger programs that is.

Purchasing something is not the definition of receiving a contribution. So much the more so since your money doesn't even buy you the source code. People should consult the English dictionary and realize they are using the term "contribution" incorrectly.

[mhull]

Put another way:
There are many ways to benefit from something.
I can benefit by simply seeing it (art, for example)
I can benefit by using something (public transportation, for example)
I can benefit by learning something (reading at the public library, for example)
I can benefit by teaching something (teaching the underpriveleged Seattle youth in the UPWARD BOUND program, for example)
I can benefit by seeing a mistake, and hence avoiding the same thing myself.
I can benefit by improving my attitude.
I can benefit by improving my health.
I can benefit by public service to the community (it is not only the recipient that is blessed, but even more so the donor)
I can benefit myself and others by working on a public software project.
I can solve people's business problems by working on a commercial software project.

Everyone knows this. I didn't have to say it.

If you had to pay to obtain them, they weren't contributions. Everyone knows this. Why does anyone have to say it?

[Albert Silver]

Put another way:
There are many ways to benefit from something.
I can benefit by simply seeing it (art, for example)
I can benefit by using something (public transportation, for example)
I can benefit by learning something (reading at the public library, for example)
I can benefit by teaching something (teaching the underpriveleged Seattle youth in the UPWARD BOUND program, for example)
I can benefit by seeing a mistake, and hence avoiding the same thing myself.
I can benefit by improving my attitude.
I can benefit by improving my health.
I can benefit by public service to the community (it is not only the recipient that is blessed, but even more so the donor)
I can benefit myself and others by working on a public software project.
I can solve people's business problems by working on a commercial software project.

Everyone knows this. I didn't have to say it.

If you had to pay to obtain them, they weren't contributions. Everyone knows this. Why does anyone have to say it?

Because you are wrong? A contribution doesn't have to be charitable (free). A contribution is when something is added.

Maybe this will help:

Etymology of Contribution