6 ms·

> The EULA is probably simply protecting MS from VS Code clones, if they ate not authorized copies, MS is not responsible. So you have some sort of source for

> The EULA is probably simply protecting MS from VS Code clones, if they ate not authorized copies, MS is not responsible. So you have some sort of source for the claim that, if one does not legally forbid reverse-engineering, they can be held "responsible" for unauthorized copies?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 Also of note is that in the U.S. most End-User License Agreements (EULAs) specifically prohibit reverse-engineering. Courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law which expressly permits it (Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In other words, for your purposes, it sounds like it would be illegal to integrate features from a reverse-engineered program into another program for commercial or non-commercial use. If you were trying to enable interoperability (again, see Section 103(f), noted above), that would be different. The point is not the being responsible part, the point is that if they do not prohibit it the law permits it under certain circumstances. By explicitly denying it companies can claim plausible deniability. (not an expert, just my understanding)
- car_analogy 4y ago
  Plausible deniability of what? So far nothing indicates that this is anything but an attempt to contractually deprive users of their rights. There is no extra liability that Microsoft would be taking on.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    I don't make the rules, if in USA courts have decided that that such contractual prohibitions override the copyright law companies will use them. Even if there is virtually no risk for them, they will protect themselves because they can and the law gives them the right to override user's rights. At least VS Code is open source and everybody can compile it and inspect it, except the proprietary bits from MS. Which sounds a lot better than old MS. Anyway, nobody complains that they can't reverse engineer AWS. Cloud computing is much more dangerous for users' right, and yet...

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/73 Also of note is that in the U.S. most End-User License Agreements (EULAs) specifically prohibit reverse-engineering. Courts have found such contractual prohibitions to override the copyright law which expressly permits it (Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In other words, for your purposes, it sounds like it would be illegal to integrate features from a reverse-engineered program into another program for commercial or non-commercial use. If you were trying to enable interoperability (again, see Section 103(f), noted above), that would be different. The point is not the being responsible part, the point is that if they do not prohibit it the law permits it under certain circumstances. By explicitly denying it companies can claim plausible deniability. (not an expert, just my understanding)

car_analogy 4y ago
Plausible deniability of what? So far nothing indicates that this is anything but an attempt to contractually deprive users of their rights. There is no extra liability that Microsoft would be taking on.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  I don't make the rules, if in USA courts have decided that that such contractual prohibitions override the copyright law companies will use them. Even if there is virtually no risk for them, they will protect themselves because they can and the law gives them the right to override user's rights. At least VS Code is open source and everybody can compile it and inspect it, except the proprietary bits from MS. Which sounds a lot better than old MS. Anyway, nobody complains that they can't reverse engineer AWS. Cloud computing is much more dangerous for users' right, and yet...