Re: [Gimp-print-devel] Wow!

[<sh...@al...>]

> That's quite true.  I should think that unless they claim copyright
> over the output files, or that someone is not allowed to give someone
> else an output file, that it would be a bit harder for them to go
> after someone for disassembling the output file.

I don't think so.  Although you are disassembling the output, and not
disassembling the driver, you are reverse engineering the driver not the
output.  The output is already understood.  Since the driver is licensed
to you under a license which forbids reverse engineering the driver (a
much more broad term than disassembly or decompilation), such activity
terminates the license.  At this point you no longer have a license for
the driver, so any further use of the driver is a violation of copyright.

At least, that's what Epson might say.

I suppose, in theory you could print out a whole bunch of test patterns,
delete the driver, and then begin the reverse engineering.  Since you've
legally downloaded the driver, used the driver to produce output files,
and then terminated your license by deleting the copyrighted software, you
can't be held for copyright violation, since at the time you possessed the
software you had a valid license, and at the time you reverse engineered
it you did not have a copy.

There may be a loophole in that loophole, though.

Eric