license for BurningMan enabled OPS/pv2tool/avidownload/etc I propose adding certain requirements to the license for BurningMan enabled OPS, pv2tool, avidownload and any other programs that would include it's unlock code.
The gist of it would be to require the user who is unlocking their camera/camcorder to leave in place the "Remember, Remember.." splash screen that would be automatically installed by the program. Only when running the program on Nov 5 would the user have the option of reverting to the default screen and permanently unlocking their camera/camcorder.
Already permanently unlocked devices would not be subject to the requirement to leave the "Remember, Rember..." splash screen in place.
Would this be permissible since BurningMan was dropped in our laps without any license and so is presumably public domain?
enigma-- 11-12-2007
I would agree, but has anyone even been able to change the spash on Linux or OS X?
also, can anyone contact fawkes.effigey about liscensing/reverse engineering the code?
BillW- 11-12-2007
Re: license for BurningMan enabled OPS/pv2tool/avidownload/e The gist of it would be to require the user who is unlocking their camera/camcorder to leave in place the "Remember, Remember.." splash screen that would be automatically installed by the program. Only when running the program on Nov 5 would the user have the option of reverting to the default screen and permanently unlocking their camera/camcorder.
Due to fragmentation and/or Ill concieved partition sizes, updating splash screens on the camcorder can be potentially dangerous. I don't think it's a wise plan to do it automatically.
Would this be permissible since BurningMan was dropped in our laps without any license and so is presumably public domain?
No_license!=public_domain
Quite the opposite in fact. Copyright law assumes a default position of 'no rights' for 3rd parties.
In fact, the decompilation posted in the other thread is a derrivative work, and a violation of fawkes.effigy's copyright. This is exactly why morcheba worked so hard on providing disassembly comments without the disassemblies themselves... to avoid stepping on PD's copyright.
SaturnNiGHTS- 11-13-2007
Re: license for BurningMan enabled OPS/pv2tool/avidownload/e The gist of it would be to require the user who is unlocking their camera/camcorder to leave in place the "Remember, Remember.." splash screen that would be automatically installed by the program. Only when running the program on Nov 5 would the user have the option of reverting to the default screen and permanently unlocking their camera/camcorder.
Due to fragmentation and/or Ill concieved partition sizes, updating splash screens on the camcorder can be potentially dangerous. I don't think it's a wise plan to do it automatically.
Would this be permissible since BurningMan was dropped in our laps without any license and so is presumably public domain?
No_license!=public_domain
Quite the opposite in fact. Copyright law assumes a default position of 'no rights' for 3rd parties.
In fact, the decompilation posted in the other thread is a derrivative work, and a violation of fawkes.effigy's copyright. This is exactly why morcheba worked so hard on providing disassembly comments without the disassemblies themselves... to avoid stepping on PD's copyright.
yep...essentially, for it to be done correctly, it would need to be a clean room approach. since you're a "tainted" individual, seeing the original disassembly, for it to be done right, you'd need to provide a very clear explanation as to how it's acheived, without saying exactly how the original author did it. then a separate code base would have to be created based upon your notes.
zapped- 11-13-2007
Would one-time brute need to be used to find the keys? Or can the keys be taken from BurningMan?
sailpix- 11-13-2007
Someone (brite_eye?) pointed out during the Cronus episode that the courts have held that keys are not protectable as IP as long as they are just arbitrary numbers. But... I wouldn't want to bet my lifestyle on that without seeing the legal precedent case and getting legal advice.
Posting the disassembled code here is not that good. I imagine that it contains code belonging to fawkes.effigy + copyrighted library code from the compiler product used to build it (Microsoft? Borland?). For the Cronus technology I showed everyone where it was posted (by PD) on the 'net and I described the algorithm.
Beyond the code copyrights, the BurningMan program clearly contains challenge encryption details which Pure Digital considers (I assume) to be a trade secret. Judging by the lengths which fawkes.effigy took to remain anonymous, this information is possibly a "misappropriated trade secret" - it doesn't "smell" real good to me.
We don't know clearly that this is a misappropriated trade secret. But from my reading of the laws, it is the user's responsibility to ensure that the information they have been handed was not misappropriated. For the app which yielded Cronuskey information (i.e. 01-04 challenges) we could clearly verify the source since it was publicly available on Pure Digital's web site. We have no apparent way to verify the source of the BurningMan application.
Anonymous- 11-13-2007
If admins feel the decompiled log is not right for this site...do your job & delete.
sailpix- 11-13-2007
I don't know that we're at that point yet... like ents, we admins try not to act with haste.
There are some admin discussions ongoing about this, but Public discussion and feedback is important also.
brite_eye- 11-13-2007
Someone (brite_eye?) pointed out during the Cronus episode that the courts have held that keys are not protectable as IP as long as they are just arbitrary numbers.
...
Judging by the lengths which fawkes.effigy took to remain anonymous, this information is possibly a "misappropriated trade secret" - it doesn't "smell" real good to me.
I don't recall posting anything about courts and arbitrary numbers, but rather seem to remember sailpix pointing that out after he posted the DVD f9 09 11 ... sequence. That smelled bad to me then and still does along with the full set of encryption keys recently listed by zapped and subsequently deleted. I don't think it matters legally whether one posts the keys directly or embeds them in code - if we suspect they were obtained illegally then the admins should remove them from this forum. However I still fail to see a problem with linking to sites that contain information - especially when Google provides the same links.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=burningman.exe
Forumer™ is Voted #1 Free Forum Hosting provider
Build your own community today with the largest message board hosting company.