So, in France, which of the following statements are true? 1. You must literally own the software in question before reverse engineering it? A normal user license is not good enough. In other words, only Microsoft may reverse engineer its own software. Pointless, but whatever...
2. You may reverse engineer a copy that you have licensed. 3. You may reverse engineer a copy that a license owner has given you permission to examine. 4. You must have formal permission of a license owner in hand and notarized before you may examine such a piece of software. Any comments from our friends in France? JB -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jean-philippe Gaulier Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Publishing exploit code ruled illegal in France? On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:40:46 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, > in France some strange things happen: > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39183862,00.htm I disagree with this article. I'm french, I know Guillaume and don't like Viguard, so I think that I could chat about that a little more. Guillaume was convicted not for his publication, but because he used first a "pseudo" illegal copy of tegam viguard, and disassemble not for compatibility The decision of the court is defined as "really friendly" for the researcher community. This point of view is explained by a french lawyer there : http://maitre.eolas.free.fr/journal/index.php?2005/03/08/87-guillermito- condamne-mais-tres-legerement See ya. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/
