Re: [Etherboot-discuss] Microsoft, the iBFT, and the GPL

[Michael B. <mb...@fe...>]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Glenn Brown wrote:
> That's not to say that someone could not create ibft support with public 
> information.  However, one would have to be very careful to not use any 
> proprietary source.  For example, http://etherboot.org/wiki/winbootibft 
> says they obtained the information publicly.  However, they did accept 
> the emboot license agreement.  I don't have the text of that license, 
> but they usually have you agree not to use the tools to reverse 
> engineer.  If you accept the license agreement, you may give up your 
> normal fair use right to reverse engineer under copyright law.

Even if we make the dubious assumption that EULAs constitute legal 
contracts, the applicable EULA to iscsibcg is, to the best of my 
knowledge, the Microsoft EULA, which contains the paragraph:

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS; OTHER RESTRICTIONS.  The Software is protected 
   by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties.  
   Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other 
   intellectual property rights in the Software.  The Software is 
   licensed, not sold.  Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly 
   granted to you in this EULA.  Reverse engineering, decompiling, or 
   disassembling the Software is prohibited, except and only to the extent 
   that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law 
   notwithstanding this limitation.  Renting, leasing, or lending the 
   Software (including providing commercial hosting services)  is also 
   prohibited.

So, there is a prohibition against reverse engineering, but I honestly 
don't think that running a program for its expressly stated purpose, and 
never looking at the program internals, can be classified as "reverse 
engineering", unless using Microsoft Word to write a letter would also be 
classified as "reverse engineering".

Michael