>>You accused a person that he was doing something wrong according to the law and that according to US law it may be unlawful to use certain software.
>
>Correct.
>
>>You questioned his morale because he would do something illegal, but this has not been proven, because it is a very difficult matter to find out.
>
>I told him back in 2014 he should not do what he's doing. He proceed. He himself has stated he's not sure if what he's doing is legal or not. He has admitted that his moral fiber is one of flexibility, being willing to do something that is potentially wrong, or to proceed not knowing if what he is doing is right.
>
>>So the issue at hand is not a theoretical best world practice, but a reference to the actual law and the society we live in. Microsoft's point of defense would be exactly that as well, and not some morale question if clicking Agree would have bound that person to the agreement. The lawyers would look only in respect to the clauses in the extend to how they can be validated according to the current law, not even to the law that was in effect of the writing of the contract. It will not be a question about contract but a question about who of the two parties is right in whateever they do according to the ruling.
>>
>>I don't care in this context what society does, I care about putting that word illegal next to a persons name which can be found in every search engine all over the web. To name someone guilty has more far reaching exposure than one may imagine, and it does not matter if it was proven guilty or only a mishap of tongue. Even if it turns out that someone did something entirely legal and no harm was done, those words are out there to do their damage, and who is able to collect all of them and remove all traces wherever they went?
>>
>>As I mentioned before, I agree with the basic question, but I disagree putting people's stakes at risk, because it does not help solving the issue.
>
>You are bringing together more than the issue I brought against Chen's development by reverse-engineering and de-compiling Microsoft's binary code.
>
>What Chen did is in violation of the EULA he agreed to when receiving the software. It is a personal moral decision to violate those terms wilfully, no matter what the law states or allows you to do. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, it's legal to get an abortion in the U.S. That does not make it a moral decision, or the right thing to do. It is the same here, though no loss of life is involved, merely the same principles applied to another aspect of our life and living.

Chen is not decompiling. He works on machine code level (I consider assembler memnonics as machine code). Simply check his akward comments what he is fixing, its all assembler. This is like reading a book.

Rick, Chen is doing a legal work under german law. Imagine we (Germans) have ordered him to fix bugs MS is unwilling (MS is) or unable (as well) to fix. We can fix the bugs ourself, or hire somebody. This is a right we have wether or not MS writes something in there EULA or not. If MS is denying it, it's unlawfull. So this about his right to do it. I guess there is a lot of people out there that simply will sign a contract with Chen for bugfixing. Can you prove we have not done it yet? You don't know our rights and contracts, you see only parts of a work done. So I would be carefull what I name illegal or the like. And if it's illegal, it's not on me to name it. I'm not MS nor contracted to act for MS.

All what is left is the problem if you, in the U.S., and only there, might have the right to use a product fixed for us. For any other country in the world, local law has to be considered.

Lutz