I would agree with Raymond. Just because you didn't buy the product does
not mean the code is not copyrighted. Many people produce freeware
products. That means you are free to use the product that you are provided.
Decrypting/Reverse engineering gives you something you were not originally
given.
Did you read the license agreement that you agreed to when you downloaded
those tags. I bet they said Decrypting/Reverse engineering is against the
license agreement. And doing so is not only unethical but illegal. Not
matter if you paid for it, were given it, or the author paid you to take it.
At 02:07 PM 6/8/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > We had a programmer leave and they left everything encrypted, so we had to
> > decrypt the files to update them and fix errors
>
>I can see this. But again, legally, you should have, probably, contacted
>Tech Support @ Macromedia.
>
> > The other time is a little like "reverse engineering" - I downloaded a tag
> > from the gallery which did "sort of" what I wanted, but not enough... I
> > decrypted it to see how they did one particular part, and then re-wrote it
> > to put it into my template... I didn't use their code at all, but used the
> > theory behind it - it saved a few hours of working out how it was done (or
> > waiting for someone to help on CF-Talk <g>)
>
>This is just wrong. If I encrypt a tag, that should be the end of it. Just
>because you want to see how I did it doesn't give you the right to decrypt
>it. Period.
>
> > Since I wouldn't decrypt a purchased product, nobody is losing any money
> > from they way I've done it... but it has been invaluable when
> > saving time on
> > certain projects
>
>I repeat: If I encrypt a tag, that should be the end of it. Just because you
>want to see how I did it doesn't give you the right to decrypt it. Period.
>
> > Personally, I believe anything in the Tag Gallery (and is free)
> > shouldn't be
> > encrypted as you're effectively giving away the files anyways...
>
>I would repeat myself again but that would be silly. If I choose to give you
>my code, but I don't want you to see my source, that's my choice, not yours.
>If you decide to not use my code because you can't check the source, that's
>ok, but don't tell me you have the right to decrypt my code just because you
>feel like it. Maybe I feel like hacking into your server?
>
> > The decrypting issue becomes one of ethics in the end (for non-purchased
> > products), but is a legal matter if it's a paid-for product -
> > especially if
> > the company supplies an Open Source version at a cost
>
>And this is where I get confused. You obviously recognize that it's an
>ethics thing, but what kind of ethics state that, "Even though you encrypted
>your code and don't want me to see it, I have the right to ignore you and
>look at it?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
