From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 23 12:12:27 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 23 12:12:25 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net (smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net [209.3.218.43]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531DB37B400 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 12:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from bellatlantic.net (client-151-198-117-201.nnj.dialup.bellatlantic.net [151.198.117.201]) by smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26297; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:57:38 -0500 (EST) Sender: root@smtp02.teb1.iconnet.net Message-ID: <3A4503B2.C0DE31A@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:57:38 -0500 From: Sergey Babkin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-19990626-CURRENT i386) X-Accept-Language: en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremiah Gowdy Cc: SteveB , Drew Eckhardt , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT References: <000901c06be9$00910570$aa240018@cx443070b> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > > Trouble is there is no consistency in the rulings. > > United States Code Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201 Subsection (f) > > My basic interpretation of this is, if you legally own a copy of the > software (firmware is software), you can legally reverse engineer the > software for the purpose of achiving interoperability. Therefore, if you > own a piece of hardware, and you have no driver for the hardware, or the I wonder, if this provision is overriden by the DMCCA (the new proposed and in some places adopted act on software copyrights) ? -SB To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message