Re: [Gimp-print-devel] Wow!

[Robert L K. <rl...@al...>]

   From: sh...@al...
   Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:53:04 +0900

   > 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.

No, the output isn't understood yet.  You don't care how the driver
operates; it's a matter of how the printer operates.  Consider that
there are free programs around that can read Word or Excel files and
nobody has gone after them.

Until and unless someone consults a competent lawyer in the US, I
would like everyone to observe the following principles:

1) Any specific information obtained from someone you have reason to
   believe has signed a relevant NDA, and that that information is
   likely to be covered by the NDA, should not be used here.  That
   definitely includes CIE values, which are about as important a
   trade secret as a printer manufacturer would have.  If the
   information is merely of the form "Page X of the publicly available
   programming manual covers this" that's fine.  If it's a gray area,
   stay away.  In the particular case, I do not want the CIE values
   for the Epson inks used in the program.  Whether you're legally in
   the clear or not notwithstanding (and I don't think you are,
   necessarily), violating an NDA is simply a dishonorable thing to
   do.

2) Any such information obtained by independent methods (e. g. by
   means of a spectrometer, or if someone who you have no reason to
   believe is under NDA gives you values that s/he says are obtained
   by independent means) is legitimate.  But don't try to cut corners
   here.

3) Information obtained by examination of output (either output files
   or actual printed output) can be used as freely as you consider
   appropriate.  If you want to try to reverse engineer the dithering
   algorithms (beyond just the command sequences required), and a
   friend gives you a printout, and you use a loupe to inspect the
   paper, that's completely kosher (I'd have real trouble believing
   that your friend is violating any agreement by giving you a printed
   photo that s/he has rights to, and so ordinary copyright applies:
   if you own the photo, you can do as you please; if someone else
   owns the rights to the photo, you need permission from that
   person).

4) Information obtained by disassembling code or any files supplied by
   the manufacturer is out of bounds.

If someone can document that disassembling output files generated from
data that you legally possess for purposes of interoperability has
been found in violation of anything, I will reconsider (3).  Beyond
that, it's not a matter of legalities or not, it's a matter of what I
consider an honorable thing to do.

I will discuss this in personal email, but I do not want further
debate on it on the list unless someone has actual expert legal
opinion to offer.  I want to concentrate on the driver, not on the
law.

-- 
Robert Krawitz <rl...@al...>      http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/

Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lp...@uu...

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton