Source Code Rights Question

[fuchs.markus]

Hello,
I have a question regarding the copyrights of .NET Framework-Source
Code and hope, that sb. can help me.

Suppose, I want to extend the functionality of a ASP.NET server control
by deriving from it. Through the design process I get to a point, where
I would have to inherit a class that is declared as internal.
I look in the object browser and see that the internal class's base
class is public.
So my solution is to rebuild the internal class by inheriting the
public base class and extend it with my code.
And here comes the point where it gets interesting:
To rebuild the internal class I must know what it does. So I look at
the source code of the class in .NET Reflector.
Now I could simply copy the source, but I guess I violate copyright by
doing this.
Can somebody help me out here?

Thx
Markus

[thechaosengine]

I wont tell anyone if you don't :-)

Reflector wouldnt give you the source code wholesale though would it? I thought
it would only let you see information than can be gleaned from reflection?
Maybe it gives you the IL?

Anyway - taking the source code wholesale probably is illegal technically,
but I doubt MS would really care. If you were really paranoid you could perform
black box testing and create an implementation yourself. This has been practiced
for a long time in both the software and hardware worlds and most likely
by MS at some point.

Theres a short and sweet definition and discussion of reverse engineering
at the following location:

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

I'd be interested in the views of others on this as well

Kindest Regards

tce

[Chris Dunaway]

Reflector give the source code in C#, VB, or Delphi as well as IL. It
is very illuminating.

[Tom Dacon]

You really think Microsoft wouldn't care about someone extracting source
code from a copyrighted piece of software for which the developer accepted a
licensing agreement that says in part, as quoted directly from the EULA (end
user licensing agreement):

8. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You
may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and
only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable
law notwithstanding this limitation.

Hmmm???

Tom Dacon
Dacon Software Consulting

"thechaosengine" <na> wrote in message
news:27*********************@news.microsoft.com...

I wont tell anyone if you don't :-)

Reflector wouldnt give you the source code wholesale though would it? I thought it would only let you see information than can be gleaned from reflection?
Maybe it gives you the IL?

Anyway - taking the source code wholesale probably is illegal technically,
but I doubt MS would really care. If you were really paranoid you could perform black box testing and create an implementation yourself. This has been practiced for a long time in both the software and hardware worlds and most likely
by MS at some point.

Theres a short and sweet definition and discussion of reverse engineering
at the following location:

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

I'd be interested in the views of others on this as well

Kindest Regards

tce

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Tom,

8. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY.
You
may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except
and
only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable
law notwithstanding this limitation.

This last part is according to the EU law, think by instance when there is
no owner anymore for the software because the official one is broken and
nobody took it over, and it is necessarily for you to change things in that.
If you do not write sentences like this in your licence in the EU, they can
tell that your license is against that law.

However you have to be able to proof that you have done reasonable actions
to find the official owner and to ask him first to change it for you at
reasonable cost. Of course this only if you use the software legally.

This is of course a short explanation AFAIK and far from complete.

Cor