Comment Re:Not all fun and games for free software (Score 1) 333
It depends on what the bill defines as "reverse engineering" - whether it's only about disassembilng program code, or other aspects (e.g. ideas) as well. When writing a piece of software, you often take some ideas from other pieces of software, or think through how the logic works in other pieces of software, and apply it to your own. Could this be illegal under UCITA? Most software uses some ideas from other software.
However, if companies like M$ start suing the pants off of consumers/small businesses or disabling their software because they violated the EULA, everybody will switch to OSS in a heartbeat. Have you ever read the terms in a M$-sytle proprietary license? They're draconian. Almost all proprietary licenses prohibit reverse-engineering (most have a clause that goes something like "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software...") Most also disclaim the software vendor's responsibility if it doesn't work. (But they reserve the right to sue your pants off if you do something they don't like.) And you have to open the box to read them (this is after you've purchaced the software). For this reason, I never considered software licenses true contracts (where both parties negotiate before they sign the contract.) It's not that hard to violate a typical EULA. And I'm pretty sure that most users don't read these to discover all the draconian terms they're agreeing to, they just click "I Agree". Of course, it's another reason to switch to OSS, but a lot of businesses (and comsumers) are still running on proprietary software, and most of them probably don't know about this. And what if this law makes reverse engineering illegal as such that OSS develpoment becomes illegal? The state governments probably own lots of proprietary software licenses, so what would they think if they voted this into law, and had software vendors disable all of their software? Because the process to shut down somebody's software doesn't require a court order, software vendors could shut down somebody's software whenever they please (and for whatever reason).
Slowly but surely, it seems our freedoms are being taken away... If anything, we need to get strict on the big corporations, not on endusers or small businesses.
ALincoln.
However, if companies like M$ start suing the pants off of consumers/small businesses or disabling their software because they violated the EULA, everybody will switch to OSS in a heartbeat. Have you ever read the terms in a M$-sytle proprietary license? They're draconian. Almost all proprietary licenses prohibit reverse-engineering (most have a clause that goes something like "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the software...") Most also disclaim the software vendor's responsibility if it doesn't work. (But they reserve the right to sue your pants off if you do something they don't like.) And you have to open the box to read them (this is after you've purchaced the software). For this reason, I never considered software licenses true contracts (where both parties negotiate before they sign the contract.) It's not that hard to violate a typical EULA. And I'm pretty sure that most users don't read these to discover all the draconian terms they're agreeing to, they just click "I Agree". Of course, it's another reason to switch to OSS, but a lot of businesses (and comsumers) are still running on proprietary software, and most of them probably don't know about this. And what if this law makes reverse engineering illegal as such that OSS develpoment becomes illegal? The state governments probably own lots of proprietary software licenses, so what would they think if they voted this into law, and had software vendors disable all of their software? Because the process to shut down somebody's software doesn't require a court order, software vendors could shut down somebody's software whenever they please (and for whatever reason).
Slowly but surely, it seems our freedoms are being taken away... If anything, we need to get strict on the big corporations, not on endusers or small businesses.
ALincoln.
