RE: WDM C++ kernel mode

NTDEV
1

So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software? Section 6 of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their own version doesn’t sound good either.

Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news group forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).

If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you personally to get express permission to use your library without being bound by LGPL?

I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to use it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now causing you headaches.

Thanks,
–Jeremy

2

Sure. Bring on the letters. I think the library needs an update for the
latest compiler versions anyhow, as I am suspecting that it doesn’t work. So
my thoughts are that with the update (*real soon now*) I would also just
remove any licensing at all from it and replace it with a bsdish copyright
thing. Of course I will discover two years later that this was not a good
idea either.

=====================
Mark Roddy DDK MVP
Windows 2003/XP/2000 Consulting
Hollis Technology Solutions 603-321-1032
www.hollistech.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of
xxxxx@telestream.net
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:17 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] WDM C++ kernel mode

So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software?
Section 6 of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the
requirement that my license can’t restrict users from reverse
engineering my product. The other requirement of allowing
anyone to replace the C++ library with their own version
doesn’t sound good either.

Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open
up your library as public domain, but I wonder if your
posting on a news group forum would hold up in court (not
that I think you would take me to court, but our corporate
lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).

If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you
personally to get express permission to use your library
without being bound by LGPL?

I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really
like to use it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the
community is now causing you headaches.

Thanks,
–Jeremy

Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online
at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

3

There is no legal basis for prevention of reverse engineering when
conducted appropriately.

MM

>> xxxxx@telestream.net 2006-09-01 14:17 >>>
So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software? Section 6
of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license
can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other
requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their own
version doesn’t sound good either.

Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your
library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news group
forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to
court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).

If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you personally
to get express permission to use your library without being bound by
LGPL?

I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to use
it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now causing
you headaches.

Thanks,
–Jeremy

Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

4

Be careful on that claim, DMCA for one prohibits it, and there are
successful legal actions against reverse engineering. I personally think
that reverse engineering should be legal, but right now it may not be.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> There is no legal basis for prevention of reverse engineering when
> conducted appropriately.
>
> MM
>
>>>> xxxxx@telestream.net 2006-09-01 14:17 >>>
> So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software? Section 6
> of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license
> can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other
> requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their own
> version doesn’t sound good either.
>
> Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your
> library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news group
> forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to
> court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).
>
> If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you personally
> to get express permission to use your library without being bound by
> LGPL?
>
> I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to use
> it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now causing
> you headaches.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jeremy
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

5

The specific determination will depend upon the jurisdiction in which
one is located (and to which one is subject which may not be the same.)

Keep in mind that this forum has international membership and thus laws
(e.g., DMCA) that apply to some developers may not apply to others. My
recommendation is that you consult with legal counsel experienced in
your own jurisdiction and get an opinion letter (such a letter
establishes that you’ve “done your homework” and can generally keep you
out of prison should the opinion be wrong…)

As for the OP, since Mark owns the library, you can negotiate any deal
you want with Mark, but then it is a separate license agreement. Then
the issue of reverse engineering is moot and you’ve helped support one
of the community resources - solving your commercial problem AND doing
your civic duty.

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:23 AM
To: ntdev redirect
Subject: Re:[ntdev] RE:WDM C++ kernel mode

Be careful on that claim, DMCA for one prohibits it, and there are
successful legal actions against reverse engineering. I personally
think
that reverse engineering should be legal, but right now it may not be.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> There is no legal basis for prevention of reverse engineering when
> conducted appropriately.
>
> MM
>
>>>> xxxxx@telestream.net 2006-09-01 14:17 >>>
> So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software? Section
6
> of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license
> can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other
> requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their
own
> version doesn’t sound good either.
>
> Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your
> library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news group
> forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to
> court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).
>
> If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you
personally
> to get express permission to use your library without being bound by
> LGPL?
>
> I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to
use
> it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now causing
> you headaches.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jeremy
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

6

DON:

What are some of the successful legal actions against a clean-room
performed RE? What does “prohibit” mean? I’m not saying that one will
not get sued. Nothing can prevent that. But rather that if one is
deciding whether to include a product or not based on its contribution
to preventing RE, one probably needs to reconsider. You are right
though, that I should have been clearer.

MM

>> xxxxx@acm.org 2006-09-04 12:23 >>>
Be careful on that claim, DMCA for one prohibits it, and there are
successful legal actions against reverse engineering. I personally
think
that reverse engineering should be legal, but right now it may not be.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> There is no legal basis for prevention of reverse engineering when
> conducted appropriately.
>
> MM
>
>>>> xxxxx@telestream.net 2006-09-01 14:17 >>>
> So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software? Section
6
> of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license
> can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other
> requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their
own
> version doesn’t sound good either.
>
> Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your
> library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news
group
> forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to
> court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).
>
> If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you
personally
> to get express permission to use your library without being bound by
> LGPL?
>
> I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to
use
> it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now
causing
> you headaches.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jeremy
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

7

A Google search of the term “Reverse Engineering Case Law” turns up a
surprising wealth of information. As to the specific question, for
those interested in US Legal coverage please refer to “Bowers v
Baystate” a 2003 case in which the US Supreme Court let stand the lower
court decision upholding shrink-wrap license restrictions against
reverse engineering. Another case to consider is Blizzard v BNetD in
which the 8th Circuit upheld a summary judgement against programmers for
reverse engineering (c.f.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/ for actual legal
documents and decisions regarding this case.)

Even the five minute Google search clearly indicates this is not a
cut-and-dried issue. For example:

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/coherence_in_dm_1.html -
contains interesting information with respect to the “fair use”
exception to the DMCA reverse engineering prohibition.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1391/125/ - this points to
issues for consideration in Canada in trying to construct their own
laws. Note references to http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
and a pointer back to the Blizzard case.

Indeed, EFF appears to be an excellent resource for information - they
are very actively involved in DMCA issues in the US.

One interesting point that I raised when Mark Russinovich first
published the Sony Rootkit issues is pointed out in
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php - that Alex
Halderman (I watched his presentation last month in Vancouver. See the
paper on the USENIX site -
http://www.usenix.com/events/sec06/tech/halderman.html)

So, after a fairly quick read of this material I’d be very cautious
about making any conclusions even in the US as to the legality of
reverse engineering in the US.

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Martin O’Brien
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:37 AM
To: ntdev redirect
Subject: Re:[ntdev] RE:WDM C++ kernel mode

DON:

What are some of the successful legal actions against a clean-room
performed RE? What does “prohibit” mean? I’m not saying that one will
not get sued. Nothing can prevent that. But rather that if one is
deciding whether to include a product or not based on its contribution
to preventing RE, one probably needs to reconsider. You are right
though, that I should have been clearer.

MM

>> xxxxx@acm.org 2006-09-04 12:23 >>>
Be careful on that claim, DMCA for one prohibits it, and there are
successful legal actions against reverse engineering. I personally
think
that reverse engineering should be legal, but right now it may not be.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> There is no legal basis for prevention of reverse engineering when
> conducted appropriately.
>
> MM
>
>>>> xxxxx@telestream.net 2006-09-01 14:17 >>>
> So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software? Section
6
> of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license
> can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other
> requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their
own
> version doesn’t sound good either.
>
> Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your
> library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news
group
> forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to
> court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).
>
> If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you
personally
> to get express permission to use your library without being bound by
> LGPL?
>
> I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to
use
> it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now
causing
> you headaches.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jeremy
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

8

ALL:

This was not one of my finest posts (i. e. - “There is no legal basis
…”). Please disregard.

Apologies,

MM

>> xxxxx@osr.com 2006-09-04 13:30 >>>
A Google search of the term “Reverse Engineering Case Law” turns up a
surprising wealth of information. As to the specific question, for
those interested in US Legal coverage please refer to “Bowers v
Baystate” a 2003 case in which the US Supreme Court let stand the
lower
court decision upholding shrink-wrap license restrictions against
reverse engineering. Another case to consider is Blizzard v BNetD in
which the 8th Circuit upheld a summary judgement against programmers
for
reverse engineering (c.f.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/ for actual legal
documents and decisions regarding this case.)

Even the five minute Google search clearly indicates this is not a
cut-and-dried issue. For example:

http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/08/coherence_in_dm_1.html -
contains interesting information with respect to the “fair use”
exception to the DMCA reverse engineering prohibition.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1391/125/ - this points to
issues for consideration in Canada in trying to construct their own
laws. Note references to http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
and a pointer back to the Blizzard case.

Indeed, EFF appears to be an excellent resource for information - they
are very actively involved in DMCA issues in the US.

One interesting point that I raised when Mark Russinovich first
published the Sony Rootkit issues is pointed out in
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php - that Alex
Halderman (I watched his presentation last month in Vancouver. See
the
paper on the USENIX site -
http://www.usenix.com/events/sec06/tech/halderman.html)

So, after a fairly quick read of this material I’d be very cautious
about making any conclusions even in the US as to the legality of
reverse engineering in the US.

Tony

Tony Mason
Consulting Partner
OSR Open Systems Resources, Inc.
http://www.osr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Martin O’Brien
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:37 AM
To: ntdev redirect
Subject: Re:[ntdev] RE:WDM C++ kernel mode

DON:

What are some of the successful legal actions against a clean-room
performed RE? What does “prohibit” mean? I’m not saying that one
will
not get sued. Nothing can prevent that. But rather that if one is
deciding whether to include a product or not based on its contribution
to preventing RE, one probably needs to reconsider. You are right
though, that I should have been clearer.

MM

>> xxxxx@acm.org 2006-09-04 12:23 >>>
Be careful on that claim, DMCA for one prohibits it, and there are
successful legal actions against reverse engineering. I personally
think
that reverse engineering should be legal, but right now it may not be.

–
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DDK)
Windows 2k/XP/2k3 Filesystem and Driver Consulting
http://www.windrvr.com
Remove StopSpam from the email to reply

“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> There is no legal basis for prevention of reverse engineering when
> conducted appropriately.
>
> MM
>
>>>> xxxxx@telestream.net 2006-09-01 14:17 >>>
> So is anyone using Mark’s C++ library in comericial software?
Section
6
> of the LGPL worries me. Specifically the requirement that my license
> can’t restrict users from reverse engineering my product. The other
> requirement of allowing anyone to replace the C++ library with their
own
> version doesn’t sound good either.
>
> Mark, I appreciate your comments that you would like to open up your
> library as public domain, but I wonder if your posting on a news
group
> forum would hold up in court (not that I think you would take me to
> court, but our corporate lawyers aren’t likely to accept it).
>
> If the LGPL license is too stringent for us, can I write you
personally
> to get express permission to use your library without being bound by
> LGPL?
>
> I appreciate that you wrote the library, and I would really like to
use
> it in my driver. Sorry that your gift to the community is now
causing
> you headaches.
>
> Thanks,
> --Jeremy
>
>
> —
> Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
> http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer