Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bitwize 3486 days ago
Most EULAs forbid reverse-engineering, decompiling, or disassembly. In the USA, EULAs are legally binding contracts per Vernor v. Autodesk, so disassembling a program in violation of the EULA could make you civilly or criminally liable for copyright infringement.
2 comments
brazzledazzle 3486 days ago
Generally probably worth keeping in mind but it seems extremely unlikely someone developing a tool for developers is going to make a stink about reverse engineering anything except for license validation code.
link
codedokode 3486 days ago
It is actually illogical. If you paid for a program and later do not accept EULA then what have you paid for? I think if you have bought a program you get the right to use it without any EULAs because that's what a purchase is. I hope other countries have more reasonable laws.
link
bitwize 3486 days ago
This is the exact issue under law in Vernor, to wit: whether or not a customer who purchased AutoCAD had the right to resell his copy under the "first sale doctrine" (AutoCAD licenses are nontransferable per the EULA). Most proprietary software comes with a statement "This software is licensed, not sold" or words to that effect. You are not buying a copy of the software; you are buying a license to use the software. Because you must make a copy of the software (in memory) in order to use it, you are in violation of copyright by using the software without a license. So any use of the software is subject to the terms of the EULA and by using the software you agree to those terms. Violating the terms = no license = no right to use the software.

Pretty standard contract law really, and the 9th circuit agreed, finding in favor of Autodesk in Vernor. But hire a lawyer if you need to know for sure.

link
codedokode 3485 days ago
> You are not buying a copy of the software; you are buying a license to use the software.

And you generally cannot use software without first installing it to a hard drive so obviously it should be treated as a part of "usage", not "making a copy". Like playing a DVD is just usage, not making a copy. But of course the law doesn't always follow common sense.

I think that making copies for oneself (as long as one doesn't distribute them) should not be regulated by copyright too.

The Berne Convention says:

> Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

> It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

So it is possible to permit making copies for oneself under Berne Convention if the lawmakers wanted that. For example, law allows to record TV programs.

link