[A83] Re: Hmm, ti's license for the SW
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: Hmm, ti's license for the SW
Peter-Martijn Kuipers writes:
> Since I wanted to find out exactly wat those bytes in the OS were
> that the thread referred to, I downloaded the OS from TI.
> Luckily the license prohibits only reverse-compiling and
> reverse-assembly, but not reverse-engineering.
What makes the license legally binding? Suppose it actually was binding,
what if I was under 18 years of age?
Additionally, I haven't had to agree to and sign any contracts when
purchasing a TI calculator. Legally, that means I can do anything I want
with the calculator and it's ROM, provided it is legal under standard
copyright law.
> But it set me thinking... assembly is not too hard to learn to read in
> object-code, so what if I could read and understand assembled
> object-code, and I was reading through the 8xu file. Would that be
> considered reverse-assembly.
> If so, could they prohibit me from reading the 8xu?
> Or does the term reverse-assembly only apply to running the code
> through a dis-assembler?
If you actual answers to these questions, consult an attorney licensed to
practice in your jurisdiction. Anything else is a guess. Also be aware
that a judge or jury may interpret things differently than your attorney,
but that is true with all aspects of law.
The purpose of a legal document is to be clear on intent and leave no room
for interpretation. Otherwise, things would be written in ``plain English''
and not ``legalese''. Terms such as these should be defined clearly by the
document. Since they are not, they are open to interpretation. It is my
understanding that generally, the intent of a document is upheld. In this
case, it would be reverse-assembly whether done in your head or using a
computer program. Either way, you would be intending to reverse-assemble
the licensed material, thus violating the license.
--
David Phillips <david@acz.org>
http://david.acz.org/
References: