Re: Is reverse engineering legal ?

karl_m_at_acm.org
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: 26 Nov 2004 10:02:32 -0800

Bill Unruh wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> writes:
>
>
>
> ]Matthew Skala wrote:
>
> ][snip]
> ]> ..... That
> ]> claim may sound pretty bogus, but before you dismiss it out of
hand,
> ]> consider that it's basically the justification for most software
license
> ]> agreements at all: "To run the program on your computer you must
*copy* it
> ]> to your computer's RAM, and we have the exclusive privilege to
authorize
> ]> *copying*, therefore we can set terms for when you're allowed to
run the
> ]> program."
>
> ]But the customer pays for the software for the purpose of
> ]running it (at any time, at least on a single computer, I
> ]suppose). So that copying action is certainly authorized,
> ]isn't it?
>
> The argument is that you are only allowed to use the program under
the
> terms of the license. The claim is that the license is a copyright
license.
> As such however it can only limit copying, Not use. copyright law
says
> nothing about use and you cannot institute a copyright license which
limits
> anything but copying.
>
> Ie, they can set terms under which you can copy, but not under which
you
> are allowed to run it. Once it has been copied (ie loaded into ram)
the
> authority to limit copying run out. You can then use that copy for
whatever
> purpose you please under copyright law. It is like saying that
because you
> copy the book onto your retina when you read it, they can limit what
you
> can do with the information contained in the book. No.

"For the purposes of his arguments, Professor Lessig looks at copyright
law as a restriction on usage, that one must clear use of copyrighted
material prior to usage. He uses the example of how the secondary
inclusion of a copyrighted poster into a movie scene now requires a
legal release from the copyright holder to illustrate the direction
that the law is taking and its impact upon the creative process in
general."

The example of needing copyright clearance to include a poster in the
background of a movie is meant only as an indicator of the DIRECTION
that things are going in, not that the legal principles at stake are
equally applied to all realms.

karl m

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another opportunity
    ... I quote from the "Oracle Technology Network ... Developer License" to which you must agree in order to legally ... and not for any other purpose. ... - use the programs for your own internal data processing ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • [Patch 1/4] move XP and XPC to drivers/misc/sgi-xp -v4
    ... config FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER ... See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive ... similarity index 99% ... License. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Where The Fuck is the Informix Developer Edition V11 Download?
    ... But according to the license agreement for the down loaded Oracle server, it can only be used to create an initial single prototype of any application. ... "LICENSE RIGHTS We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the program only for the purpose of developing a single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose." ...
    (comp.databases.informix)
  • [PATCH][v3][2/21] Add core InfiniBand support
    ... General Public License Version 2, ... FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ... NONINFRINGEMENT. ... IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
    ... > program version as you claim then how would you specify versions ... And likewise "How come the FSF itself, ... distributes its default COPYING file with code clearly intended ... everybody necessarily even includes the LICENSE file. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
Quantcast