Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security The Courts Upgrades Build

Hack an Oscilloscope, Get a DMCA Take-Down Notice From Tektronix 273

Posted by timothy
from the keep-both-pieces dept.
An anonymous reader writes with the news that Hackaday published an article on the poor security of the add-on modules that Tektronix sells as expensive add-ons to unlock features in certain of its oscilloscopes. The reader writes: "It has come to attention of Tek's legal eagles and they now want the article to be taken down. Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hack an Oscilloscope, Get a DMCA Take-Down Notice From Tektronix

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:09AM (#47612897)

    The car analogy:
    "Owen says:
    July 28, 2014 at 8:09 am
    If you download the trial version of a piece of software you might also have to pay $500 to “de-cripple” features that are already present in the version you’ve got.

    If you download a crack for it to unlock those features because the company didn’t make it difficult enough for people to get around their protection, that still doesn’t make it right.

    I imagine Tektronix just rely on the fact that a lot of people that buy their expensive kit will be businesses and businesses generally have to do things by the book, so they won’t bother unlocking things they haven’t paid for, in the same way Adobe relies on business users to buy Photoshop and mostly overlooks all the home users not paying for it."

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:10AM (#47612901)

      Woops, This is what I meant to post:
      "MRE says:
      July 28, 2014 at 10:41 am
      I think it is more like this:
      You buy a new car, and to save money, you opt for the ‘no thrills’ package. No radio. No electric windows. No heated seats.
      Upon receiving the car, you discover that the manufacturer did in fact install the radio. Did in fact install the electric windows. And did install the seat heaters.
      However, none of them work. Upon further investigation you discover that to have the items enabled, you must pay the difference in price. But, you poke around and discover that in the fuse box (which required a special screw driver to open), three slots are empty: Radio, Windows, Seats.
      You pop fuses into each slot and everything comes alive.

      Was this theft, or did the factory simply give you the stuff at no cost, and hope you would pay them more money when you decided you wanted the options enabled after all?"

      • by tompatman (936656) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:58AM (#47613155)
        The G37 Sport package includes paddle shifters on the steering column. If you wanted them on a non-sport version though, there was an ebay seller who sold the paddles. All of the wiring and functionality was already there, just bolt on the paddles plug them in and you were done. Car manufacturers include a lot of stuff like this by default because it would be more expensive to install different features based on what the buyer was willing to pay for.
        • The G37 Sport package includes paddle shifters on the steering column. If you wanted them on a non-sport version though, there was an ebay seller who sold the paddles. All of the wiring and functionality was already there, just bolt on the paddles plug them in and you were done.

          Don't be so sure - if I want to add steering wheel audio controls to my truck, I have to take it to the dealership* to get it programmed (in addition to adding the proper parts), despite the fact that "all the wiring and functionality [is] already there".

          * Or spend a few grand on a Tech II and GM software subscription.

        • An older example: Back in the day, IBM sold two card punch/readers, IIRC the 620 and 630. One was much faster and more expensive than the other. According to what I was told back then, the difference was that the slower cheaper one had an extra circuit board that slowed it down. Remove the extra, and voila! faster - plus loss of warranty, no field service, etc. of course.

          It's quite common on most cars to have a single wiring harness that includes all the plugs for the extra features, possibly for all mo

      • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

        Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.

        • Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.

          So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime?

          Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?

          • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

            Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.

            So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime?

            Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?

            I agree it is a slippery slope, however, technically, they are correct in that the information being disseminated is from their copyrighted manuals. Posting their copyrighted information has led to the takedown notice. I'm curious, though, if the process could be posted without referencing their specific content - such as "look up the serial number for the feature you want to enable and enter it on such and such screen," instead of "Enter xyz1234 to enable this feature." Technically, if you aren't reprodu

            • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @09:59AM (#47613629) Homepage Journal

              I read the original article (thanks to the WayBack Machine), and unless the "copyrighted manual" tells you how to program an EEPROM with an SKU, then I don't see how it's a violation of DMCA.

              Boy, wouldn't that be a kick in the face? For corporations to be able to limit access to knowledge by writing it in a book and copyrighting said tome? Sounds like the premise for a dystopian novel.

            • Unless they copy/pasted (or typed word-for-word) exactly what was in the instruction manual, it's not a copyright violation. It is not a copyright violation to read instructions and re-write them in your own words.
            • You can quote text. Copyright protects the work as a whole, not snippets of the work. I can quote you a sentence from a popular novel and the author can't do shit about it. Fair Use does still exist.
            • Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. "The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy" is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression.

              If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression.

              • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

                Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. "The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy" is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression.

                If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression.

                IANAL, but based on what I have read elsewhere, I believe you are incorrect.

                • > IANAL

                  If you were a lawyer, you might start by reading the law (statute).
                  102 . Subject matter of copyright: In general ...
                  b) In no case does copyright protection ... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery
                  from http://www.copyright.gov/title... [copyright.gov]

                  Also 499 U.S. 340, 345 "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates."

                  If the wording of the statutes are unclear, you would look at how the court has interpreted it. Fei

          • by whistlingtony (691548) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @10:33AM (#47613965)

            If they had posted, verbatim, Tektronics documents showing how to do this hack.... that would be a copyright abuse. If I write up some notes on how to hack their scope, that document is MINE, and it is protected by copyright the moment I wrote it.

            I get that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent the protections on a copyrighted work.... How is an oscilloscope a protected work?

            Do I get to slap a DMCA notice on a burglar to my house?

      • Car? First sale doctrine. It's yours.

        Software? It's not yours, you (most likely) agreed to a license to use it, which may include a fee per feature.

        Are click through licenses, after purchase / install valid? Debatable, and untested in the court room.

    • by Camembert (2891457) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @09:53AM (#47613575)
      In my company, one of our products comes with a useful database. The license clearly stipulates that the database and its updates are only allowed to be used with the product. It is a kind of courtesy to make that product more user friendly. For integration into big central systems the database is available separately with different licensing schemes. Predictably, in the end we had to encrypt the database to enforce compliance, as too many customers (it must be said: less so in western countries) would not care to follow the license. Just because you technically can do something, doesn't make it right, esp. if it is not allowed according to the license.
    • cars with an oil change light that needs a code to reset and they intend for that code to only be told to the dealers? and it's some thing that is really easy to do?

      Can they sue jiffy lube and others who do there own oil change from resetting the light under the DMCA?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:11AM (#47612905)

    Since this is an abuse of the DMCA law Hack-a-day could have told Tektronics to go fuck themselves, but no ...
     
    After receiving that DMCA notice Hack-a-day quickly changed the wording of the original article (without the permission of the original author, of course)

  • wayback machine (Score:5, Informative)

    by sxpert (139117) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:19AM (#47612933)

    the article is safely stored in the wayback machine, and i have made a backup away from the reaches of the stupid DMCA.
    yet another project ripe for the application of the streisand effect

  • Wayback Machine (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:21AM (#47612943)
    Fear not, the original article is still available http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
    • by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:40AM (#47613063)

      So it turns out that the "module" is just an EEPROM which contains the module's own product SKU. Which is information that Tektronix provides in their own catalogue. Genius. Nobody will never crack that code.

  • Tek smeck (Score:5, Informative)

    by labnet (457441) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:24AM (#47612957)

    Have never like tek scopes that much, or Agilent. In fact my fav. Scopes are Yokogawa DLM series.
    All the manufacturers do the cripple thing though. If you want free I2C or LIN or CAN or USB or UART, buy a PC scope like a CleverScope.

    • Re:Tek smeck (Score:5, Informative)

      by harrkev (623093) <kfmsd@harrelsonf ... g minus language> on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @10:13AM (#47613755) Homepage

      In all fairness (and as a former Agilent employee), you would not believe the amount of work that goes into those things that you don't get with cheap PC-based scopes and low-end stand-along scopes. They do a LOT of work making sure that the front end (analog stuff between BNC and A/D converters) is correct. Also, lots of DSP-ish type stuff right after the A/D too. I am a digital designer, and I worked on some of the oscilloscope chips, and I don't even understand a lot of that of that stuff.

      For a hobbyist working with bandwidth-limited signals, and everything is 5V or less, the cheaper brands are probably fine. However, how do you tell if your scope is lying to you? Do you know aliasing when you see it? I have seen some PC-based scopes do the voltage offset (where you twist the little knob to move the waveform up and down) all in software, and seen the clipping in the A/D -- nasty stuff. You really need do to that in the analog front end You also have how many waveforms per second that you can display. If you have a glitch that happens only rarely, if you are capturing only 30 or 100 waveforms per seconds, you might not see the glitch. On the other hand, if your scope is capturing 50,000 waveform/second, you stand a MUCH greater chance of seeing it.

      I do admit that scopes are a pricey purchase, and part of that is due to the low volumes involved and the high amount of R&D. But, if you need something that you can trust (you make your living off design work and are not just a hobbyist), you really need to get something professional from a reputable company.

  • I want to buy one of your oh so silly scopes now I know it can be hacked.

    oh, dear you're being assholes about releasing broken software - maybe I won't then.

  • WebArchive (Score:5, Informative)

    by jiadran (1198763) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:28AM (#47612983)

    The Google cache was taken down. The original author seems to have agreed to take down the information on his site as well, even without having been contacted him-self:
    https://sites.google.com/site/... [google.com]

    However, they were too late. The web archive has already archived their pages. Here are the relevant links:

    http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]

    http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]

    (not modified)
    https://oshpark.com/profiles/m... [oshpark.com]
    http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]

  • DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:31AM (#47612993)

    I'm not sure that the letter published qualifies as a DMCA takedown request, as it doesn't actually mention any part of the DMCA or any other copyright act that has been broken. I'm not sure that a short keyphrase constitutes copyright-protected matter, for one thing. And it's not like publishing the information violates the noncircumvention part of the Act, because they aren't circumventing an anticopying mechanism. They're circumventing a different mechanism entirely I suspect they're just trying their luck.

    • by SLi (132609)

      A mechanism doesn't need to prevent copying in order to qualify for DMCA's anticircumvention protections; it only needs to control access to a work. That's why you specifically need an exception for phones, among other things, even if phone unlocking does not let you copy the phone or its software.

      "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Law]".

      You would be right that this does not qualify as a DMCA takedown request. In this

      • by msauve (701917)
        No one is circumventing (literally, "come around," e.g. bypass) anything. That would be the case if the product's firmware were being hacked/modified to not do the entitlement checks.

        Instead, this is a straight up duplication of the factory hardware which enables entitlements. It's not getting around the protections, it's opening them in exactly the way they were designed to be opened.
        • by SLi (132609)

          Whether the access is gained by the same way or a different way from how a copyright owner would do it is not material to the law; the authorization of the copyright owner is the defining criterion. The law defines circumvention thus:

          to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner'

          For example, most non-authorized decryp

      • by Sockatume (732728)

        Is blocking functionality controlling access to a work, though? Can an oscilloscope's behaviour even qualify as a work under copyright law?

  • This is Danaher Corp (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:35AM (#47613021)

    Tektronix is now owned by DANAHER corp. It is the same corp that bought Fluke and declared that nobody else can produce yellow DVMâ(TM)s. Remember the DVMs Sparkfun was importing but were seized at the border? Same company.

    They gobble up good brands, and it seems the production is often sent overseas. Some folks say the quality of those great Amercian brands then suffers. Do a search and you'll see a long list of companies.

    • by cdrudge (68377)

      Or you could just go here [wikipedia.org] instead of searching (not that it took much to find it.)

      Of the list of companies, I only recognized Amprobe, Fluke, Textronix, and Matco. But I don't really work in most of those industries where the other companies are better known.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Tektronix is now owned by DANAHER corp. It is the same corp that bought Fluke and declared that nobody else can produce yellow DVMÃ(TM)s. Remember the DVMs Sparkfun was importing but were seized at the border? Same company.

      You probably think Apple patented "rounded corners" too and think Apple owns the entire market.

      The yellow-jacketed-DMMs are a Fluke TRADEMARK. They are a design that Fluke uses to make their designs distinct so people can recognize it as a Fluke.

      Sparkfun imported crappy (unsafe) DMMs

    • by Rich0 (548339)

      Well, the lawsuit is something new, but Tek has been using software-unlockable features since the 80s as far as I'm aware.

      It doesn't make sense for them to have 14 different front-end designs and software designs to allow for different feature sets. On the other hand, the cost to develop the high-end features is higher than developing a cheap scope, so they don't want to just give that stuff away for free. From what I understand there is some really good design in the high-end gear.

      So, if you want compani

  • by Brandano (1192819) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:38AM (#47613049)
    Because who bought their oscilloscopes is unlikely to have the expertise necessary to replicate this hack. It's not like they are people that work with digital electronics every day. I wonder what combination they use for their briefcase.
  • An anonymous reader writes with the news that Hackaday published an article on the poor security of the add-on modules that Tektronix sells as expensive add-ons to unlock features in certain of its oscilloscopes.

    The add-on modules are expensive because you pay for the features they unlock, not for the components of the unlock device itself. It's a dongle.

    This guy is essentially trying to cheat. It's like you could unlock some cool DLC content for a game, but instead just went cracking the encrypted data files and getting that content without paying the game company.

    Hey, if you don't like a scope which has this kind of feature unlock capability, just don't buy it. But stop messing with other people's legitimate busi

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @08:47AM (#47613103)

      A poor analogy. You would have to actually download the DLC files first, in almost all cases.

      And he's not cracking encrypted data files, he's putting in a cheat code, which happens to be the name of the DLC, because the company are morons.

      • by kbg (241421)

        No actually most DLC files are already on the disk. The only thing you download is a small file containing the key to enable the DLC.

        • by cdrudge (68377)

          I forget, what does the D in DLC stand for?

          • by kbg (241421)

            "Downloadable", that doesn't make it true though just because it is in the name. Just like DRM doesn't actually give you any "Digital Rights" or "Microsoft PlaysForSure" doesn't actually plays for sure or "Disney FastPlay" isn't actually fast play.

        • by Sockatume (732728)

          Even in the instances where some DLC resources were on the disk (e.g. the infamous "From Ashes" day-one DLC) most of the actual game logic usually has to be downloaded. The whole point of that sort of DLC is that you can ship part of the game in an incomplete and untested state and work up until the launch day on debugging and refinement. (In From Ashes' case, it was a huge chunk of the game narrative that had been reworked in aid of a different ending.)

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @09:06AM (#47613197) Homepage

      The add-on modules are expensive because you pay for the features they unlock, not for the components of the unlock device itself. It's a dongle.

      This guy is essentially trying to cheat.

      I disagree.

      To me, they've sold you a fully functional product, and only for extra money will they 'license' you to use all of the features.

      So, imagine you've bought a car, it's got an awesome radio and a turbo charger and a backup camera. They're hooked up and working, just not active unless you shell out a bunch more money.

      This is saying we'll give you the rest of the functionality of the device we've sold you if you'll hand over more money.

      This is intentionally making a crippled product, and then gouging your consumers to get the full version.

      I see this as just rent seeking, and a business model based on upgrades.

      I don't see this as legitimate business, I see it as gouging the consumer and getting found out that your "upgrades" are doing nothing more than unlocking functionality you already have.

      • Bulldust.

        This kind of thing happens a lot where manufacturers make a product (hardware/software) that is feature-rich and the consumer chooses which features to pay for.

        Breaching unpaid-for features is theft.

        It's real simple, folks: Pay for the stuff you use.

        As for TFA, while it's questionable that publishing a "how to," violated DMCA, not in question is the wisdom of getting into a pissing contest unnecessarily.

        • by fnj (64210)

          Breaching unpaid-for features is theft.

          You are so full of bullshit that it is leaking out of your nose. Shill.

          Theft [reference.com]: the wrongful removal of personal property. You have to deprive some owner of the benefits of his ownership. Tangibly. Never mind bullshit like "presumed profits now unrealized". Nobody is taking away anything that belongs to anybody else here. This is simple reverse engineering (a rather trivial form of same) which has been a natural right since time immemorial. Not until governments were com

  • by x0 (32926) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @09:01AM (#47613177) Homepage
    All of the manufacturers now ship devices fully kitted and use licenses to unlock/enable additional features. It's less expensive to manufacture one SKU, and then differentiate models by selectively enabling features.

    At least one of the Chinese manufacturers has know about these hacks for quite a while and apparently isn't doing much about it. I expect that they are allowing this to obtain more market share from the hobbyists as I doubt most commercial operators would void warranties.

    Tek is essentially selling a software package as a value add, and they'll charge what they can until Agilent/Keysight one ups them with less expansive software.
    • by delt0r (999393)
      So when will this magical free market fix things and have someone sell a fully featured out of the box scope at the base model price?
  • lexmark tried to use the DMCA to lockout 3rd party ink and lost in the courts.

  • VHS machines. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tekrat (242117) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @09:24AM (#47613307) Homepage Journal

    Back in the day, a lot of manufacturers sold different types of VHS recorders, some with more "features" than others. It turned out that all the "buttons" were there behind the plastic faceplate, and it was just the faceplate itself that determined which were the cheap/feature-less models and which were the more expensive models.

    And of course, simply prying off the plastic revealed the extra features.

    So, back in the day, would that be a DMCA violation? Would that be theft? Would the IP police be busting down my door and holding a gun to my head for removing a piece of plastic???

    'Cause that's what we're headed towards, boys and girls.

    • by TeknoHog (164938)

      Back in the day, a lot of manufacturers sold different types of VHS recorders, some with more "features" than others. It turned out that all the "buttons" were there behind the plastic faceplate, and it was just the faceplate itself that determined which were the cheap/feature-less models and which were the more expensive models.

      Interesting. This reminds me of some current news sites that are paywalled by CSS, and everything is readable when you disable CSS.

    • Or calculators 20+ years ago. My dad used to recommend one of the cheaper programmable calculators to his students, suggesting they cut a hole to press the missing button.
    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Normally that's done to let them turn defective merchandise into a functional product. Those disabled features probably didn't all pass QA testing, whether because they just plain didn't work or were out of tolerance. Later in an item's production, there might just not be enough of a market for the expensive model and they'll start shipping perfectly good inventory as the lower-spec model too, just because the increased cost loss per unit is smaller than retooling the assembly line. This goes on to this day

  • Old tube scopes turned on faster than the shitty new ones from Techtronix
  • back in my day, an Oscilloscope would be exempt from the DMCA, unless they passed an Analog version.
  • Funny. Yesterday we had a couple of modules come in for our MDO3K series scopes, and a co-worker and I were hypothesizing about what's in the modules. We concluded they were probably using smartcard IC's, because after all you're selling these things to engineers - people who would be smart enough to break the system if you did something cheap like a TWI EEPROM.

    Ha!

    Thanks to this DMCA takedown, and the attention it brought, we'll be breaking out the Bus Pirate. You won't need a smartcard connector or custom

  • by Technician (215283) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @10:24AM (#47613885)

    This is unfortunately an old practice that has been going on for decades.

    I bought a US made digital scope over a decade ago the TDS220. With it I bought the communications module providing serial RS232, Parallel centronics, and HPGIB interfaces. With it I could connect an HP Laser printer, or Epson Dot Matrix printer and produce hard copies with a limited library of printers. Ths goal was to print to my PC. Then I found out that capibility was bundled in an expensive software package which was extra. Due to my low volume, I could not justify the expense, so to post documentation online, I used an HP 1100 laser printer and a Cannon flatbed scanner.

    Tecktronics did not offer a simple driver just to capture the image on a PC.

    Needless to say, that was the last Tektronics scope I purchased. Any future purchases would include a built in USB interface, with nessarry software as part of the TCO when shopping. I won't be burned twice by the batteries not included sales games.

    As a scope, the scope works fine as long as you don't want a screenshot directly transferred to a PC. For what I paid to obtain the communications module without any communicaitons software was a huge letdown. The printer module was only a little cheaper. Without the software, that is all this module can be used for. Let the buyer beware.

    If you want to buy Made in America, the Americans need to knock off selling cripple ware. It is a bad model and is a huge customer turn off.

  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @11:02AM (#47614247)

    On one hand, some people might say they paid a huge amount of money for a product that had this (locked) functionality built in, and they have the right to hack it. On another, it's not a trivial amount of effort to write the software that does the analysis, so I could see why a company wants to protect its intellectual property. Otherwise, why would they bother? They would have to ship the device at a higher price to cover the cost of developing the features.

    I think the solution here is for the companies to implement reasonable security. Cisco is famous (at least lately) for shipping crippled hardware that is fully capable of performing the functions that are unlocked by various licenses. They implement it as a soft key that ties in with the device serial number (i.e. pay your money, go online to Cisco, give them the license code and your serial number, and they give back another code to enter into the device. And presto, instant feature. Another example I have right here at work is an IBM DS3500 disk array. There are feature keys for everything -- volume snapshots, remote copy, SSD support, increased number of hosts, and a very mysterious, strangely named "Turbo Performance" option [1]. So this is nothing new -- my disk array is running the base configuration and I'm fully aware the controllers in it are shipped with these capabilities. It's weird having to buy $10K pieces of paper, but I see why they do it.

    It seems like Tektronix was relying on security through obscurity and they assumed no one would try to build hardware keys to work around their feature protection. HP recently did something similar with the ProLiant and Integrity server line that Oracle/Sun did a while back -- they simply stated that no firmware upgrades would be available on their machines without a warranty or service contract. As someone why buys old hardware for fun, it makes it difficult to get it to the last firmware that HP released for it. But, fixing firmware isn't free, so there's that angle as well. I think the HP/Sun/Oracle stuff is aimed more at forcing you to buy service from them, so it's a little different.

    [1] Side note - even the reseller who sold us the device couldn't tell us what Turbo Performance did. After a lot of digging, I figured out that this option is used when you add tons of disk shelves to the array, and it lifts an artificial performance cap on the controllers.

  • What if I didn't like the software running on my scope hardware and I decided to erase all of it, wrote my own software and firmware to load onto the EEPROMS, etc, and then released my software as free and open source, along with installation and usage manuals. Seems like DMCA could be used against me in such as a case as well, or am I wrong?

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...