About the legality of read-write files of propietary software.

[tonnot]

I want to you to fill this 'quiz'
( Can I read/write files created by other program, for example Excel.Autocad,etc ?)

(Yes is legal, No is not legal)

---------------------------- Fully Free software --------LPGL Software -------------- NON free software
Read ascii ..................................... Yes .......................... Yes .............................. NO
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
Read ascii that has ......................... Yes .......................... Yes .............................. NO
some coding
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
write ascii
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
write ascii that has
some coding
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
Read binari
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
Read binary that has
some coding
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
write binary
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------
write binary that has
some coding
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ----------------------

1. In the case of ascii coding we can assume that is easy to discover.
2. In the case of binary coding, we can assume that some inverse engineering is needed to know how is the structure of the file and the meaning of codes..
3. We can assume we are doing import - export utilities.
4. What can be happen if we are writing into an existing file created by the original soft.?

Thanks

[hanst99]

The answer to all is "It depends on the file format" - that is, is it proprietary and if yes, did the owner restrict use in some way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_format

Other than that, if you own the file it's always legal to read the file - well, that may be different depending on where you live, but where I live that is the case.

[tonnot]

Thanks
I have read the wiki doc, but I still have doubts.
Can I read-write autocad files ?
Can I read-write pdf files ?

[hanst99]

PDF files yes, autocad I do not know.

[chrisname]

Basically, it's legal to try and read or even reverse engineer it unless there is something trying to stop you - that could be an EULA, or the file could be encrypted. No-one will care what you do as long as you don't distribute it though.

[Bazzy]

No-one will care what you do as long as you don't distribute it though.

If the license explicitly forbids reverse engineering it still illegal.
Anyway, even if you paid for the proprietary software which generated the file you'll likely have the permission to use the given file as you wish.
Of course if it's a proprietary format you may not be able to make any sense of it

[chrisname]

What I mean is that if you're reverse engineering files and not distributing them, the company isn't going to know or care. It's only if you start telling people how you did it or distributing your reverse engineered files and algorithms or the code you used to reverse engineer them. Otherwise, how would they know? Why would they care? Legal action costs them money.

[Bazzy]

If you murder someone and nobody knows that, it doesn't mean that it's fine.
Reverse engineering is not as serious as murder and may not cause any consequences but when it's forbidden it's illegal.

[chrisname]

I'm not saying it's right or legal, just that no-one will care if he keeps it to himself.

[Browni3141]

Bazzy wrote:

If you murder someone and nobody knows that, it doesn't mean that it's fine.

But murder hurts someone else, reverse engineering a file format doesn't. If I want to do something that won't bring harm to anyone, and that there won't be any consequences for it, I'll do as I please, whether it's legal or not.

[Bazzy]

After the sentence you quoted I wrote:

Reverse engineering is not as serious as murder and may not cause any consequences but when it's forbidden it's illegal.

You are free to do illegal stuff if you want but it's still illegal.
The OP is asking about what is legal and what is not.

[hanst99]

If the license explicitly forbids reverse engineering it still illegal.

Maybe in the US. Not where I live. Reverse engineering for educational purposes is always legal here, such a license statement isn't effective everywhere.

[Bazzy]

The software may restrict its use in some countries.
You need to read the license very carefully, it may also remove any right to use the software if part of the license is invalidated

[Seraphimsan]

I suddenly find my self against the FOSS movement, and more in favor of the protected OSS movement.

[tition]

If the license explicitly forbids reverse engineering it still illegal.

Without being a lawyer, I dare say that this is not true. A breach of contract is not necessarily illegal; especially if this contract might contradict other legal aspects (such as the rights coming from your ownership of the file).

By the way, one of these days I might try to actually become a member of the pirate party (its Bulgarian version probably). Here is their manifesto :)

http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english

[Browni3141]

tition wrote:

By the way, one of these days I might try to actually become a member of the pirate party (its Bulgarian version probably). Here is their manifesto :)

http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english

That is seriously awesome. I've always thought patents/copyrights were harmful and far too restrictive.

The Pirate Party wrote:

Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms)

I think there is a patent on corn. I think some idiot got claims to ownership of some gene, which is now present in all corn. Re-seeding corn is illegal because of this (at least in the U.S.).

Scientific/Mathematical/whatever knowledge should be free and open to all.

[hanst99]

It's relatively simple, copyright is necessary for many businesses. However, not everything should be copyrightable.

Who Owns Scientific Knowledge?
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/knowledge.php

[tition]

copyright is necessary for many businesses

One can pose another question: are most of those businesses really necessary for humanity?

[hanst99]

are most of those businesses really necessary for humanity?

Define necessary. Specifically, the funds for research have to come somewhere, and most of the spending power lies in the hands of private investors. Those wouldn't invest anything if there wasn't anything in for them, and the possibility that someone may just take your research results and use them without ever compensating you wouldn't really make it more attractive for investors. Technically necessary no, practically necessary to preserve the current state of mankind (and to advance further) yes.

[chrisname]

I would hazard a guess that more (useful) innovation come from academia than companies.