I think this sentence was missing a NOT: If, as some claim and RSA disputes, the code was reverse-engineered from object files in off-the-shelf software, then the law was probably broken - unless RSA and other vendors decide to test the strength of highly questionable and likely unenforceable shrink-wrap licenses that try to prohibit disassembly/decompilation. (But I don't have the DDJ to verify this)
On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Harry Bartholomew wrote:
I think this sentence was missing a NOT:
If, as some claim and RSA disputes, the code was reverse-engineered from object files in off-the-shelf software, then the law was probably broken - unless RSA and other vendors decide to test the strength of highly questionable and likely unenforceable shrink-wrap licenses that try to prohibit disassembly/decompilation.
No, that's correct as printed. -- Michael Handler <grendel@netaxs.com> Philadelphia, PA Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics s.s.y.g-l-b co-moderator You're only as elegant as your actions let you be
participants (2)
-
bart＠netcom.com -
Michael Handler