From: Mark Bradley (gpsb) <mrcb.gpsb@os...> - 2004-09-22 17:21:58
I'm not a lawyer (as you could tell by my poor financial situation if
you knew), but what about the following situation?
If person A buys/acquires legally a program that produces some
proprietary data format of that person's self-entered data, that person
must behave in accordance with the terms of acquisition of the original
program. But in my experience these terms do not limit people to NOT
distributing the files produced nor does they limit them to distributing
such files with a trimmed down (or any) licence agreement. So if person
A creates a data file with his/her new program and gives this file to
person B and person B decides to reverse engineer it, there's no
infringement of licence agreement and yet the reverse engineering of the
data file has still taken place.
What I'm getting at is that unless the Groundspeak people attempt to
limit users of the format to dissemintating those users' own data,
reverse engineering a data format must be permissable, even if it's not
done by a direct Groundspeak "customer".
IMHO, vendors have every right to control use of their PROGRAMS, but not
the data produced by users of those programs.
Just my naive view.
[mailto:gpsbabel-code-admin@...] On Behalf Of
Sent: 22 September 2004 16:02
To: Ron Parker
Subject: Re: [Gpsbabel-code] Quick patch to remove Groundspeak
The big question has been asked here: http://tinyurl.com/6s8ke
Text of the post:
Does that mean that all programs that can write GPX format files with
groundspeak extensions are in violation of that agreement? E.g.
gpsbabel, GSAK? BTW since both GPX and LOC are XML files, there is
nothing to "reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble" about them. They
are cleartext. The only way not to understand their structure is not to
look at them. Besides, Groundspeak itself has made the format public by
making it available at http://www.groundspeak.com/cache/1/0/cache.xsd.
Reading GPX files is allowed, right? Now if one can read GPX files, one
can write them, too. No "reverse engineering, decompiling or
disassembling" is required. So this part of the agreement doesn't make
Now it's wait and see for the answer.