Isn't that decision up to the folks who own the rights to the original code?
Personally, I'd be hesitant to get into a project that has more need for lawyers than coders.
We have strength in numbers.
By using ToS, you're limiting enforcement to the people who do the RE, rather than an implementation, surely?
This is the process used to achieve the "IBM PC Compatible" system you're probably using right now (including your Mac). Reading up on the development of the Compatibles is a good way to understand how to do reverse engineering correctly.
You should always emphasize that its the correct way _in the US_. As somebody already mentioned, HN readership is international, and said restrictions on reverse engineering do not apply everywhere. Also the author, judging by his name, doesn't seem to be a US citizen.
"This manual describes the various units of the IBM Personal Computer AT and how they interact. It also has information about the basic input/output system (BIOS) and about programming support.
The information in this publication is for reference, and is intended for hardware and program designers, programmers, engineers, and anyone else who needs to understand the design and operation of the IBM Personal Computer AT."
It includes the source listing of the PC AT BIOS, as well as complete interface pinouts, etc.
The colophon for this manual reads
First Edition (March 1984)
So what is your time line for IBM only publishing this manual after the PC AT was cloned?
The first "100% Compatible" was the Compaq Portable in 1982. It wasn't the first "compatible" to market, but it claimed to be the first that hit the "100%" mark and validated the clone market.
Abstrd, but true according to what you're saying, if you can prove that I copied it. Now, assuming you did download and peruse the source code for Free_skype: fine. Now prove it.
And, IIRC, there are still mixed results regarding the extent to which EULAs are enforcible.
That's a really muddy term. How exactly can you protect a protocol? Trade secret? Patents?
Copyright shouldn't apply if it's a reimplementation.
Of course I have NFI what country the skype-open-source poster is in. FWIW the blog host (blogspot) is obviously in the US, the depositfiles.com file host has DNS registered in Seychelles but seemingly resolves to a US server...
This is as opposed to publishing observations/specifications from looking at such dumps, or from a black-box observation of Skype's behaviour. In this case I believe jcr is 100% correct that what's being distributed isn't protected reverse engineering output, it's a derivative work of the original.
In short: Decompiling or cracking a program and posting it online with notes is not the same as reverse engineering it, although it's a step in that direction.
Can we even believe anything that cookiecaper says? I mean, what's HIS credentials?
(see what I did there? Ad hominem attacks are just that: logical fallacies. Please don't do them.)
No offense intended. :)
None Taken. :)
But to answer your question:
- I have no credentials, and don't want any.
- I am not an expert, and don't want to be one.
- For every bit of the subject matter that I've learned, I can name at
least a half dozen people who know that bit better than I do.
I would suggest not wasting your time trying to authenticate me, the
source, but instead, put your effort into finding outside authentication
of the statements. The source in this case really doesn't matter, but
outside confirmation really does matter.