5 ms·

I think that claim would be better off if rephrased as "my aim is to make a skype compatible open source software"

michael_dorfman 15y ago
That still doesn't mitigate the need for lawyers. The protocol is still intellectual property, and reverse engineering it may not be without consequences.
- johkra 15y ago
  "intellectual property" 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. Edit: s/since/if/
  - michael_dorfman 15y ago
    The easiest way to is to restrict the right to reverse-engineer in the Terms of Service of the Skype client (which he needs to use, in order to have something to reverse engineer.)
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      Terms of Service don't necessarily have any legal force, and many jurisdictions have legal protections for the right to reverse-engineer, particularly for interoperability purposes.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    While copyright wouldn't apply to an independent reimplementation, the article included links to decompiled versions of the Skype binaries, which would definitely fall under Skype's copyrights. Nothing wrong with using those decompiled binaries to reverse-engineer and document the Skype protocol, and I hope this produces useful results there, but that doesn't make it OK to directly redistribute the decompiled binaries.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I don't believe it's possible to secure any sort of intellectual-property protection for a mere protocol. The usual way of protecting them, though, is to patent some essential feature needed to implement the protocol, which may or may not be the case here.
  - michael_dorfman 15y ago
    Actually, as I've said elsewhere, one easy way of protecting a protocol is to explicitly restrict the right to reverse engineer in in the Terms of Service of the client that implements the protocol. Without that client, there's nothing to reverse engineer.
    - barrkel 15y ago
      I'm not sure that's necessarily enforceable everywhere; it can be interpreted as an illegal barrier to competition.
      - michael_dorfman 15y ago
        That might be true; but do you want to be responsible for hiring the team of lawyers to go head-to-head against Microsoft's lawyers on that point?
        lurker19 15y ago
        Thanks for reminder to contribute to the EFF this year. We have strength in numbers.
    - dmc 15y ago
      What about if a developer were to now download the source code available here? Could they, in theory, develop with it as they've never attempted to reverse engineer it themselves? By using ToS, you're limiting enforcement to the people who do the RE, rather than an implementation, surely?
      - 15y ago
- unicornporn 15y ago
  This being illegal in the US does not mean it is illegal everywhere. People (Americans?) often seem to forget this. US law is not world law.
- angusgr 15y ago
  IANAL, but might the DMCA exemption on reverse engineering for program-to-program interoperability possibly apply in the US?[1] 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... [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID210 http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID210
  - angusgr 15y ago
    (Follow up: JCR's comment seems to make it clear that's what is being distributed here doesn't constitute reverse engineering in the legal sense. I hadn't actually looked at the files. Ah well.)
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      And what are jcr's credentials? Not everyone that posts on HN is an expert or should be assumed to understand their subject matter.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
        Hmm, so you aren't smart enough to attack JCR's ideas, so you go after his character? Are you stupid or what? 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.)
        cookiecaper 15y ago
        It wasn't an ad hominem attack and I have nothing against jcr. I don't even disagree. I just felt it was important to advise people to check their sources since the parent comment seemed to be putting a lot of trust in a comment that could easily contain misinformation. No offense intended. :)
        15y ago

That still doesn't mitigate the need for lawyers. The protocol is still intellectual property, and reverse engineering it may not be without consequences.

johkra 15y ago
"intellectual property" 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. Edit: s/since/if/
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  The easiest way to is to restrict the right to reverse-engineer in the Terms of Service of the Skype client (which he needs to use, in order to have something to reverse engineer.)
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    Terms of Service don't necessarily have any legal force, and many jurisdictions have legal protections for the right to reverse-engineer, particularly for interoperability purposes.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  While copyright wouldn't apply to an independent reimplementation, the article included links to decompiled versions of the Skype binaries, which would definitely fall under Skype's copyrights. Nothing wrong with using those decompiled binaries to reverse-engineer and document the Skype protocol, and I hope this produces useful results there, but that doesn't make it OK to directly redistribute the decompiled binaries.
_delirium 15y ago
I don't believe it's possible to secure any sort of intellectual-property protection for a mere protocol. The usual way of protecting them, though, is to patent some essential feature needed to implement the protocol, which may or may not be the case here.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  Actually, as I've said elsewhere, one easy way of protecting a protocol is to explicitly restrict the right to reverse engineer in in the Terms of Service of the client that implements the protocol. Without that client, there's nothing to reverse engineer.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    I'm not sure that's necessarily enforceable everywhere; it can be interpreted as an illegal barrier to competition.
    - michael_dorfman 15y ago
      That might be true; but do you want to be responsible for hiring the team of lawyers to go head-to-head against Microsoft's lawyers on that point?
      - lurker19 15y ago
        Thanks for reminder to contribute to the EFF this year. We have strength in numbers.
  - dmc 15y ago
    What about if a developer were to now download the source code available here? Could they, in theory, develop with it as they've never attempted to reverse engineer it themselves? By using ToS, you're limiting enforcement to the people who do the RE, rather than an implementation, surely?
    - 15y ago
unicornporn 15y ago
This being illegal in the US does not mean it is illegal everywhere. People (Americans?) often seem to forget this. US law is not world law.
angusgr 15y ago
IANAL, but might the DMCA exemption on reverse engineering for program-to-program interoperability possibly apply in the US?[1] 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... [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID210 http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID210
- angusgr 15y ago
  (Follow up: JCR's comment seems to make it clear that's what is being distributed here doesn't constitute reverse engineering in the legal sense. I hadn't actually looked at the files. Ah well.)
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    And what are jcr's credentials? Not everyone that posts on HN is an expert or should be assumed to understand their subject matter.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
      Hmm, so you aren't smart enough to attack JCR's ideas, so you go after his character? Are you stupid or what? 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.)
      - cookiecaper 15y ago
        It wasn't an ad hominem attack and I have nothing against jcr. I don't even disagree. I just felt it was important to advise people to check their sources since the parent comment seemed to be putting a lot of trust in a comment that could easily contain misinformation. No offense intended. :)
        15y ago