PROMs and Copyrights...

[Mike]

<*snip*>

>>Looking at traditional GM code, I'd say that for that hardware to work with
>>GM PROMs, it'd have to be designed pretty-much trace-for-trace the same as
>>the GM ECM since the code is so deeply integrated with the hardware, which
>>certainly would be grounds for an "Ahem...what do you think you're doing?"
>>letter.
>
>A bunch of folks tried a similar approach with proprietary hardware, code,
>communications protocols, etc. in the digital building controls industry.
>There was some outright robbery going on in terms of parts, system
>expansion, and service pricing once a building owner/property manager got
>committed to one control hardware mfgr.
>
>Through trade organizations (like BOMA) and with the help of design
>professionals, who learned to write smarter specs, this general practice is
>nearly whipped into submission at this time--open protocols, etc. are
>becoming the norm very rapidly in the building controls industry.
>
>What it is gonna take to straighten this $#% out in the auto industry is a
>few big fleet buyers (hertz-Avis-Budget-Penske-etc.) getting collectively
>smart and saying "ENOUGH OF THIS #$&*$#% !!!! We insist on open protocols,
>etc.!! First one to do it is the one who will sell us all of our
>vehicles!!"
>

"Open protocols" in what sense? OBD-II went a long way toward
standardization of extra-vehicular communication but even then they couldn't
get their shit together enough to give us a true "standard": we're stuck
with 16-pin OBD-II plugs with no less than 3 possible types of
communications interface (ISO, VPW and PWM at two possible rates
fercrissakes...) An OBD-II scanner that works on GM cars may not work on
Ford cars. I suppose it's not a true OBD-II scanner then...


I think I sense the thread drifting slightly off course from the spirit of
my original query so I'll restate it now that I've seen several learned
responses that gave me a bit of insight and direction:

How does copyright law affect us, as geeks, nerds, white-hat-hackers,
hobbiests and general gear-heads (or whatever you want to call us) insofar as:

- making a copy of a PROM image in ones own car or from a PCM/ECM in ones
possession
- uploading said PROM image to, say, the imcoming directory
- downloading any image from the incoming directory
- reverse engineering an image obtained either by reading a PROM or
downloading it
- publishing in the public domain, free of charge, findings of that reverse
engineering (for example, "Change byte at 81F4 to remove the speed limiter"
or "The byte at 81F4 describes the maximum TPS voltage before such and such
a code is set")

For now, I'll assume we as list members are in it for the "educational" or
otherwise "personal" uses and not for profit. I've seen arguments on both
sides (i.e. both "It's all okay" and "It's all illegal"), all of which are
convincing in their own way. 

So I'm guessing it's safe to assume that there's some level of illegality
involved in what 99% of us are doing but that since we aren't making money
at it, we are generally doing it for personal and/or educational purposes
and we are, after all, pretty small potatoes when it comes to threatening
the industrial complexes of Ford, GM, Nippon-Denso, Mazda et al, we are
probably at zero risk of raising the ire of the manufacturers.

Sounds reasonable right?


--
 Mike