DDJ editorial

I think this sentence was missing a NOT:

                                    If, as some claim and RSA disputes, the
  code was reverse-engineered from object files in off-the-shelf software,
  then the law was probably broken - unless RSA and other vendors decide to
  test the strength of highly questionable and likely unenforceable
  shrink-wrap licenses that try to prohibit disassembly/decompilation.  

    (But I don't have the DDJ to verify this)

On Sat, 24 Dec 1994, Harry Bartholomew wrote:

>     I think this sentence was missing a NOT:
> 
>                                     If, as some claim and RSA disputes, the
>   code was reverse-engineered from object files in off-the-shelf software,
>   then the law was probably broken - unless RSA and other vendors decide to
>   test the strength of highly questionable and likely unenforceable
>   shrink-wrap licenses that try to prohibit disassembly/decompilation.  

	No, that's correct as printed.

--
Michael Handler <grendel@netaxs.com>                        Philadelphia, PA
Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics           s.s.y.g-l-b co-moderator
               You're only as elegant as your actions let you be