x
This website is using cookies. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. More info. That's Fine
HPC:Factor Logo 
 
Latest Forum Activity

Netfront Application Hacking Cease and Desist Order

Moderators: C:Amie

Jump to page : First : Prev : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 : Next : Last
Now viewing page 7 [15 messages per page]

takwu Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 5:44 AM
#
Avatar image of takwu
H/PC Elder

Posts:
1,952
Location:
BC, Canada
Status:
Quote
deusexaethera - 2007-10-10 4:51 PM

Oh god, where do I start.

how convenient, just what i have in mind now.

Quote
The better question would be why you think you understand the issue better than I do, seeing how my expertise directly relates to the issue. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over qualifications, but to put it simply, unless you design, implement, and sell software, then I know more about the issue than you do, regardless of your esteem in this forum.

altho this is a bit off topic... i did design, implement and distribute freeware. just not sell. i know there is a big difference, but i know about the issue. i also worked in a software development company, altho not as a coder. perhaps that's why our perspective of the actual sales of the license are somewhat different. btw, "knowing more about the issue" does not automatically make one's view correct, or "more correct". in any case, qualification or any background of the person that makes a statement has nothing to do with the objective validity of the statement itself. on that note, i should never have mentioned about your profession and the question of your understanding on the issue based on that fact. it was just a curiousity (which I thought was clearly so), and had nothing to do with the argument itself.

Quote
You must have never worked for a company, then. If you hire me to flip a burger and then change your mind and want me to fix a shingle instead, you have the ability (not the right, necessarily, but f$% rights, they're just extra-special laws) to tell me to fix the shingle if I want to get paid. Likewise, I have the ability (again, not necessarily the right, see above for my opinion) to agree or disagree to remain in your employ. Short of slavery or indentured servitude, this is how employment ALWAYS works.

it's not about whether you have the ability, it's about whether you SHOULD do that. a lot of us have the ability to hack the software in question, but it's about whether we should do it.

Quote
So it seems you're unaware that PPC2003 == Win CE.NET + a fancy Today screen and a couple of extra DLLs which Microsoft does not object to people using. As long as PPC2003 is supported, by definition Win CE.NET is supported.

Anyway, as has been amply demonstrated, the modification necessary to use NetFront on Win CE.NET is to change two octets of data, which most likely amount to a version code or part of a DLL filename, or something equally miniscule. The actual operation of the software is unchanged, hence the only extra support necessary is to host an extra download and include a hyperlink to download the necessary PPC DLL files from Microsoft -- hardly an amount of effort worth alienating hundreds of customers in order to avoid.

that definition contradicts with the entire issue here. netfront supports ppc2003, but it does not support win ce.net. it simply does not run on win ce.net in its current state. if the product is to add support for win ce.net, there will be issues. issues that a software developer will have to spend resources to address.

the modifications that are "demostrated" are 1) not complete; netfront modded to run on win ce has some glitches (both aesthetic and functional) which means it does not have all features defined by the design of the software, hence incomplete, and 2) out of specs; the specifications of a "proper" win ce applications are vastly different from that of a modded PPC app. if it works, you're lucky; if it doesn't, there is no telling what causes it, unless you want to reverse engineer both platforms (or at least the entire API of both) to find the exact differences that results in incompatibilities.

you cannot sell something that happens to work, you have to *make sure* it works, as I originally stated.

Quote
If I want to make money, yes. If demand for my product goes beyond my interest in making money, then I simply have to accept that the would-be customers whom I refuse to cater to will treat me in kind.

At any cost? there is no point in "making money" if in the end you lose more in your costs. in this case i believe Access will not make a profit by doing a CE version. However I understand that is quite debatable, so I would suggest that Access also believes they won't make a profit out of it. Hope that explains why they are not doing it.

Quote
I'd like to re-type everything I said before, because it's so much fun to repeat myself, but the basic version is that if they don't want to cater to market demand, then they are at the mercy of the would-be customers that they have frustrated.

not sure what you mean by that. are you suggesting that if a company does not sell you a license that you like, you can buy the license that they do offer, and then violate it? i really do not see the justification of that.

coming back to the example I used. If your boss does not like the way you work, he can still hire you, and then force you to work in their ways?

at this point I hope I misunderstood you on that one.

Quote
Furthermore, regardless of the type of a product -- be it a crowbar or an automobile or a software application or a haiku -- if the manufacturer refuses to customize the product to suit my needs then I (and everyone else) will either find another product, or modify the product myself to suit my needs. They can try to stop me from doing so by throwing license agreements in my face, but there are two reasons why this won't work:

1) the intent behind such license agreements is not to prevent me from being satisfied with my purchase, but to prevent me from sabotaging and/or reverse-engineering the software and robbing them of income, which I am not doing;
2) I don't care about the terms of their license agreement, because they refuse to do business with me in the first place.

1) your intent may not be sabotaging or robbing them, but your actions can lead to it. by modifying the software, you are disabling the software's security.
2) they refuse to do business with you, so you can violate an agreement with them? if your tenant says you are refusing to decrease the rent next year, he/she doesn't have to honor the contract you signed for this year?

Quote
Final words:

As a software engineer, I know what it takes to build and modify software, and I also know that software companies are run by a bunch of wheezing old farts who are just as greedy as any other business owners -- it is only due to the technical complexity of the product, its newness in the big scheme of things, and the relative ignorance of the lawmakers who have to decide what is legal, that this particular set of wheezing old farts has been able to get laws passed that protect their products far more than any product deserves to be protected. I make software for a living and I don't demand such complete control over my products -- that should tell you something.

Well I know what you are trying to say, but I wonder if you're also trying to get personally attacked... just kidding... in any case, just because you don't want it does not mean no one has any legit reason to.

Edited by takwu 2007-10-11 5:45 AM
 Top of the page
takwu Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 6:03 AM
#
Avatar image of takwu
H/PC Elder

Posts:
1,952
Location:
BC, Canada
Status:
Quote
cmonex - 2007-10-10 6:51 PM
umm, you are not getting what i meant. you really do not read what i say?

as i said, Access doesnt have to do anything. no need to support the hpc's or do anything at all because it would be a waste of time for them. yet, they wasted time on this cease and desist.

also about "wrong", i see now i wrote this:

Quote
wrong, Access doesnt have to do anything. the software would be the same as the ppc one


i didnt say "you are wrong", hmm..

oh well, please read my posts a little more carefully because otherwise we are not getting anywhere.

now you lost me. i read everything and try to understand it as best as i can. not sure where the confusion is.

i dont agree that they are wasting time on this cease and desist order. it costed them what? one email? and it's intended to prevent their software from being violated, so it's a pretty good deal in my book.

your quote there, was after you quoted what I said, and then the word "wrong". that means you were saying what I wrote was wrong.

again i'm not sure where I misinterpret what you wrote. if you think I have misinterpreted, and you want to correct me, please be very specific.
 Top of the page
deusexaethera
deusexaethera Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 11:57 AM
#
Status:
I'll reply to takwu in a moment. I want to post this first.

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner....

Taken from this source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

- - -

The FIRST stipulation in US Copyright Law regarding computer programs states that you can modify proprietary programs to make them work on your hardware, as long as you own a license. Not the 362nd stipulation -- THE FIRST STIPULATION. This law supercedes any EULA that states otherwise.
 Top of the page
deusexaethera
deusexaethera Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 12:19 PM
#
Status:
Quote
takwu - 2007-10-11 5:44 AM

altho this is a bit off topic... i did design, implement and distribute freeware. just not sell. i know there is a big difference, but i know about the issue. i also worked in a software development company, altho not as a coder. perhaps that's why our perspective of the actual sales of the license are somewhat different. btw, "knowing more about the issue" does not automatically make one's view correct, or "more correct". in any case, qualification or any background of the person that makes a statement has nothing to do with the objective validity of the statement itself. on that note, i should never have mentioned about your profession and the question of your understanding on the issue based on that fact. it was just a curiousity (which I thought was clearly so), and had nothing to do with the argument itself.
Yes, knowing more about the issue does make my view more correct, by virtue of being better-informed. Someone who knows nothing about the issue could accidentally "hit the nail on the head", so to speak, but they would still be wrong as a result of not knowing what they're talking about.

Quote
it's not about whether you have the ability, it's about whether you SHOULD do that. a lot of us have the ability to hack the software in question, but it's about whether we should do it.
I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate. All I care about is that Access is not in a position to demand anything from people they refuse to do business with.

Quote
that definition contradicts with the entire issue here. netfront supports ppc2003, but it does not support win ce.net. it simply does not run on win ce.net in its current state. if the product is to add support for win ce.net, there will be issues. issues that a software developer will have to spend resources to address.
Yes, and it's up to them to decide whether the resources it would take to recompile their app to run on Win CE.NET are reasonable compared to the profit they stand to earn from doing so. However, if they refuse to meet the market's demands, then they are themselves in no position to demand anything from the market.

Quote
the modifications that are "demostrated" are 1) not complete; netfront modded to run on win ce has some glitches (both aesthetic and functional) which means it does not have all features defined by the design of the software, hence incomplete, and 2) out of specs; the specifications of a "proper" win ce applications are vastly different from that of a modded PPC app. if it works, you're lucky; if it doesn't, there is no telling what causes it, unless you want to reverse engineer both platforms (or at least the entire API of both) to find the exact differences that results in incompatibilities.

you cannot sell something that happens to work, you have to *make sure* it works, as I originally stated.
Tell that to Microsoft.

No, seriously. They can release a product that "happens to work", let users pay for the opportunity to test it, and then fix errors as they arise. It's called "beta testing" and it's a fantastically-popular and extremely-effective way to test a product.

Quote
At any cost? there is no point in "making money" if in the end you lose more in your costs. in this case i believe Access will not make a profit by doing a CE version. However I understand that is quite debatable, so I would suggest that Access also believes they won't make a profit out of it. Hope that explains why they are not doing it.
You can believe whatever you want, but you don't know how much money Access could earn by marketing their product more widely. Furthermore, as you have said yourself, you have never even attempted to earn money from your own software development efforts, so you don't even have the reference point of how much money your own effort is worth on the open market.

Quote
not sure what you mean by that. are you suggesting that if a company does not sell you a license that you like, you can buy the license that they do offer, and then violate it? i really do not see the justification of that.

coming back to the example I used. If your boss does not like the way you work, he can still hire you, and then force you to work in their ways?

at this point I hope I misunderstood you on that one.
I'll address the first part of this later on. As for whether my boss can hire me to do X and then pay me to do Y, yes, he can. And I can say 'no' and walk out the door. It's called "at-will employment", and the only time there is any restriction on it is when "job Y" is degrading according to the law, or when there are so many more workers than jobs that I would be indefinitely unemployed if I refused to do "job Y" (which, technically, falls under the definition of "degrading work", and is the sole reason why unions are useful to society nowadays).

Quote
1) your intent may not be sabotaging or robbing them, but your actions can lead to it. by modifying the software, you are disabling the software's security.
No, I am not automatically disabling the software's security by modifying the software. I have to modify the software specifically to disable the security before the security will be disabled.

Furthermore, you can't punish someone for having the capability to do something they have no intention of doing. Conspiracy to commit a crime still requires intent, and that isn't present in this case.

Quote
2) they refuse to do business with you, so you can violate an agreement with them? if your tenant says you are refusing to decrease the rent next year, he/she doesn't have to honor the contract you signed for this year?
A rental contract is not unilateral. An End-User License Agreement is unilateral. Go ahead, call Access and ask to re-negotiate the terms of your license agreement, see if they agree. If they do, then I'm an asshole. If they don't, then violating the agreement is the only way (short of litigation) to make it clear to them that the agreement is unacceptable as presented.

Quote
Well I know what you are trying to say, but I wonder if you're also trying to get personally attacked... just kidding... in any case, just because you don't want it does not mean no one has any legit reason to.
I have no idea what you meant by the first part of that, but in the second part, you are correct that my disinterest in absolute control over my products doesn't preclude anyone else having an interest. However, nobody deserves to have that much control over a product that someone else uses, regardless of how much effort they invested to develop it.
 Top of the page
deusexaethera
deusexaethera Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 12:22 PM
#
Status:
Despite the running argument, please scroll up to read the piece of U.S. Copyright Law that I quoted. I think it settles the matter once and for all.
 Top of the page
cmonex Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 1:24 PM
#
Avatar image of cmonex
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
16,175
Location:
Budapest, Hungary
Status:
Quote
takwu - 2007-10-11 12:03 PM

now you lost me. i read everything and try to understand it as best as i can. not sure where the confusion is.

i dont agree that they are wasting time on this cease and desist order. it costed them what? one email? and it's intended to prevent their software from being violated, so it's a pretty good deal in my book.


confusion: you were reacting to me as if i was demanding Access to do something to support the software for hpc's or even develop a version for hpc's.

i never did that. please read my earlier posts again.

all i said was it would be best if Access just didnt care and leave us alone. which is not what has happened.

and, it cost one email to them? what if C:Amie hadn't obliged it? then it'd have wasted more of their time trying to get him to agree. there was a risk of more waste of time. so they did bother to do this and risk wasting time.

hope it is more clear now.
 Top of the page
cmonex Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 1:30 PM
#
Avatar image of cmonex
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
16,175
Location:
Budapest, Hungary
Status:
Quote
takwu - 2007-10-11 11:44 AM

1) your intent may not be sabotaging or robbing them, but your actions can lead to it. by modifying the software, you are disabling the software's security.
2) they refuse to do business with you, so you can violate an agreement with them? if your tenant says you are refusing to decrease the rent next year, he/she doesn't have to honor the contract you signed for this year?
.



sorry to get in this other argument but couldnt resist

1) are you serious? i can't believe it. how would it disable the security of the software? do you even know what modifying netfront to run involves?

for hpc2000:
- (for version 3.3 only) edit OS version (subsystem version) to make it lower so the CE loader attempts to run the software.
- optionally edit the mfcce300.dll import dll name to mfcce301.dll if you want to avoid conflicts with other software.
(and copy aygshell.dll, cellcore.dll (cellcore for version 3.3 only), mfcce and olece dll's to your device - this isn't a modification)

for ce.net 4.2:
- copy cellcore.dll, mfcce and olece dll's to your device (optionally aygshell.dll)
- optionally edit the mfcce300.dll import dll name to mfcce301.dll if you want to avoid conflicts with other software.
- optionally edit coredll.dll import name to coredl2.dll


how is that to do with security??????????????????
(dont take the question marks personally! i'm just surprised!)

note: for version 3.0 on hpc2000, and for either version on ce.net you may not have to modify the software at all in some cases.

note2: to disable the trial expiration or anything like that, modifying it would be much harder and would require actual understanding of assembly and opcode encodings and usually also a debugger, etc. etc.
so the two things have nothing to do with each other.


2) bad analogy, the software again has no feelings or anything.



p.s.: i don't consider this as detailing the hack, because i'm not telling how to edit the imported dll name or OS version.

Edited by cmonex 2007-10-11 1:37 PM
 Top of the page
CE Geek Page Icon Posted 2007-10-11 11:23 PM
#
Avatar image of CE Geek
Global Moderator
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
12,195
Location:
Southern California
Status:
Quote
deusexaethera - 2007-10-11 9:22 AM

Despite the running argument, please scroll up to read the piece of U.S. Copyright Law that I quoted. I think it settles the matter once and for all.


I read it, and it appears pretty clear-cut. So maybe someone should confront Access with this information - right? Only problem: as noted above, we're supposedly not actually buying a product - we're only buying a license to use it.

You make a good point about marketing products without making sure that they work the way they're supposed to. Heck, the pharmaceutical industry has done it for decades. Cases in point: 1) heroin (marketed a century ago as a cough remedy); 2) phencyclidine (PCP - used half a century ago as an animal tranquilizer); and 3) methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin - pharmaceutical "researchers" never could really explain the paradoxical effect of this stimulant on hyperactive children). The bottom line always trumps any effort to look out for the consumer.

My sense is that the real motivation behind the language of these software EULAs is to prevent cracking of the software code to avoid paying for the product. If I can make it work outside its intended platform, how do they know I can't crack the registration code?
 Top of the page
deusexaethera
deusexaethera Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 1:53 PM
#
Status:
No judge will support the argument that you're only buying a license to use the product, because 1) the product exists in physical form as aligned magnetic bits on your hard drive, if nowhere else, and because 2) the law states that the exemption applies to "the owner of a copy of a computer program", not "the owner of the original copy of a computer program."

- - -

With regards to product testing, obviously you have some unresolved disagreements with the pharmaceutical industry, but in the software industry, alpha-testing and beta-testing are simply the most practical and effective ways to test applications. Takwu seems to draw his experience from the European school of software design, which breaks down every application into its component algorithms and then uses mathematical proofs to demonstrate their validity, and that is appropriate for certain products, such as banking software, autopilots, nuclear detonators, and so on. When it comes to mass-marketed products, though -- especially freaking ginormous products like MS Office, MS Windows, Linux, World of Warcraft, and so on -- the number of possible combinations of commands is so large that it would literally be beyond the capability of the entire population of the world to test them all in a reasonable period of time. (I seem to recall a statistic regarding Windows XP, claiming that it would take five billion people three thousand years to test every possible combination of commands, at a rate of one combination per minute.) That's why beta-testing exists; rather than taking the exhaustive approach, which will invariably test things that nobody will ever try to do, and rather than taking the selective approach, which will invariably exclude tests for commands that will end up being used much more than expected, it's simply more effective to let the users actually use the product and then give them free patches to fix the problems they discover in real life.

Edited by deusexaethera 2007-10-12 2:02 PM
 Top of the page
CE Geek Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 3:41 PM
#
Avatar image of CE Geek
Global Moderator
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
12,195
Location:
Southern California
Status:
Well, I'll go back to my first statement - the statute language you cite appears pretty clear; have you confronted Access with this information?
 Top of the page
cmonex Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 4:33 PM
#
Avatar image of cmonex
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
16,175
Location:
Budapest, Hungary
Status:
Quote
CE Geek - 2007-10-12 5:23 AM

If I can make it work outside its intended platform, how do they know I can't crack the registration code?



did you not read my last post (Posted 2007-10-11 7:30 PM)

let me quote myself

Quote
note2: to disable the trial expiration or anything like that, modifying it would be much harder and would require actual understanding of assembly and opcode encodings and usually also a debugger, etc. etc.
so the two things have nothing to do with each other.




also........ if someone wants to crack it (and has the knowledge for it), no EULA or cease & desist will stop them.

so why should we suffer from this?

oh well, i think i have made myself clear enough, i'll shut up for the rest of this thread.
 Top of the page
CE Geek Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 5:30 PM
#
Avatar image of CE Geek
Global Moderator
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
12,195
Location:
Southern California
Status:
You've just confirmed my point. That seems to be why they don't want anyone to touch the code at all. Sure, they can't stop anyone, but if anyone gets caught, they can be made to pay dearly. Of course, they can't catch anyone who does it for him/herself at home, but they can go after people who post the hacking method online (or, failing that, threaten to shut down the sites where such posts are made), or who sell the hacked code.

Of course, it's stupid that they don't recognize that they could solve this problem by working with us to port an H/PC version (and thereby generate additional profits, small as they may be). They'll lose additional business because at least a few smart people won't want to do business with a company that shows that it really cares little about customer satisfaction. The question is, will they lose enough business to care?
 Top of the page
Leonard_Caplan Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 6:05 PM
#
Avatar image of Leonard_Caplan
Factorite (Senior)

Posts:
87
Location:
Long Island, NY
Status:
Quote
deusexaethera - 2007-10-12 1:53 PM

No judge will support the argument that you're only buying a license to use the product, because 1) the product exists in physical form as aligned magnetic bits on your hard drive, if nowhere else, and because 2) the law states that the exemption applies to "the owner of a copy of a computer program", not "the owner of the original copy of a computer program."

I really do not want to get into the "nuts and bolts" of the issue, but want to address the comment "No judge will support the argument". Comments like this are really made with the assumption that a company such as Access would never really go to the trouble of actually taking this to court, especially in a country that is not Japan, where they are located. This is a really bad assumption, and I need to get away from software and a EULA to illustrate the point.

My business is that of a Tour Operator, speciallizing in Bike trips, mostly in France. For quite a few years, up until two years ago, I did a very large business bringing Americans to France during the three weeks of the Tour de France. For those who do not follow the sport, the Tour de France is pretty much a national festival where for three weeks the race winds through just about every region of France, and is attended by millions of people who sometimes camp out for days just to see the riders go by. There is support by every local police department as well as the government of France. The roads are closed where need be, and the whole country supports the event. There is no ticket required to see the event ... just a lot of patiience and fortitude to get where you need to be in order to participate in this glorious specticle.

Most people, including those who are real afficianados just assume that it is run by the Republic of France. In fact this is not true. The race is run, and the name "Tour de France" is put on by and owned by a private company ... the company that owns the sports daily newspare Equipe. It is a huge money maker, and the regions where the tour rides through actually bid to have the tour pass through because of national pride, and the impact on tourism.

About 2/12 years ago, some of the marketing people who had been woring for French Open Tennis went to work for the Tour de France organisation. One of the first things they came up with was that no one should be able to use the name Tour de France without paying a licencing fee. The name "Tour de France" in fact is registered in just about every county as a Trade and Service Mark. This included advertising a trip to the Tour de France, or even using the name Tour de France in any advertising. They decided that anyone wishing to use the name for tourism should become licenced, for the fee of 20,000 Euros (now about $28,000 per year, as well as having to pay 10% of the gross sales for any trips. Since there was not THAT much money to be made with these trip, the numbers were outragious.

When word of this came out, tour operators such as myself just laughed at it. It was felt that it was a French national event, there was no ticket involved, and that the French government would kill the idea since the event brought so much tourism to France. Within a short time all tour operators selling and advertising such trips received letters from the French lawyers of the TdF Organinzation.

There was an huge amount of discussion about this, that makes the discussion here seem trivial. It was felt that the threat of os lawsuit was just a threat, and there was no way that they would really go after anyone. Most of us tour operators ignored the Cease and Desist request and just went on as we did before, and continued advertising out planned trips. Within a couple of months we in the US, as well as other operators in other countries received certified letters that if we do not either obtain a license that we would face legal action.

Four years ago I was honoured by being presented with the "Gold Medal For Tourism" by the Republic of France. I am very active with the French Government Tourist Office both here and on the other side of the pond. As a result I do have access to those that matter. I had many conversation with executives and government officials in France after this mess was announced. The bottom line was that although the French govenment was not really happy about the situation, it was explained that there was nothing that could be done about it, even though the government provided so much support for the event.

At that point, most of the US tour operators decided to just give up on these trips, especially since Lance Armstrong had retired, and there would now be minimal interest in the event for US travelers. There a few who decided that it was just a threat, and continued to advertise these trips, and did run trips the following year.

To make a long story short (if that is still possible ), these tour operators were served and sued, and now are in a position that they will have to spend thousand upon thousands of dollars defending them selves. Some did offer to now stop the paractice to get rid of the suits, but the offer was refused. The ltigation will go on for quite a while, at great expense.

The point of all of this is that regardless of any opinion that any of this software and EULA stuff would never be held up in a court, it is not worth the risk to find out. Once the monster of legal action is set into motion, the consequenses could be catistrophic.

Sorry to have taken so much space to make the point, but it is a good illustration of what can happen when a law suit is threatened by a company that is contractually in the right.

Smart people pick their battles. I am sure that anyone who was sued for downloading songs off of the internet really did not think there would be any consequenses .... but anyone who has followed the news has seen what the results are.

Len

Edited by Leonard_Caplan 2007-10-12 6:25 PM
 Top of the page
cmonex Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 11:01 PM
#
Avatar image of cmonex
H/PC Oracle

Posts:
16,175
Location:
Budapest, Hungary
Status:
Quote
CE Geek - 2007-10-12 11:30 PM

You've just confirmed my point. That seems to be why they don't want anyone to touch the code at all.


sorry, i do not understand how i confirmed your point.

am i talking to people here who never hacked netfront to run?

you should be fully aware of how you have no idea about assembly and cracking, you don't have the slightest idea on how to start disabling the security of an app, and yet, you can get netfront working on an HPC...

(do not interpret this in the wrong way please. )

Edited by cmonex 2007-10-12 11:02 PM
 Top of the page
deusexaethera
deusexaethera Page Icon Posted 2007-10-12 11:36 PM
#
Status:
Leonard_Caplan:

It was a good example, but it neglected two points:

1) Japanese law doesn't apply outside of Japan, and outside of Japan is where any modifiers would have to be sued, unless Access could somehow convince various foreign governments to extradite the defendants to Japan.

2) In the USA (which has more/less the most restrictive copyright laws in the world), the law specifically prohibits copyright owners from winning lawsuits involving computer programs modified by defendants strictly for the purpose of using them with the defendants' hardware. They haven't a leg to stand on. Access may not be aware of that law, since they are based in Japan, but any lawsuit would not be much of a lawsuit as the law is quite clear on the issue.
 Top of the page
hpc:factor« View previous thread · Handheld PC General Discussion · View next thread »

Jump to page : First : Prev : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 : Next : Last
Now viewing page 7 [15 messages per page]

Jump to forum:
Seconds to generate: 0.109 - Cached queries : 66 - Executed queries : 8
Server Time now is: Monday, 26 October 2020 - 18:36