>> That's not entirely correct. If he *publishes* his code (I'm using >> this term "publish" technically to mean "put forth in a way where >> anyone of the general public can or is encouraged to view"), then he >> is *tacitly* giving up protections that secrecy (or *not* disclosing >> it) would *automatically* grant. The only preserved right is >> authorship after that. So it can be re-distributed freely, if >> authorship is preserved. The only issue after that is "fair use" and >> that includes running the program (not merely copying the source). > > No, the original author retains all rights except those explicitly > granted. The same way that obtaining the "source" to a song does not > give you the right to redistribute the song all you want.
No, you are right only by the *word* of the law, but you have not included the authors *actions*. A court has to include both. He explicitly did not *retain* his rights when he *published* his code. There is not word of law that is necessary when his actions have already done the deed (unless under coercion, of course). > Fair use has nothing to do with money. It depends on how the work is > used and how you've changed it. Weird Al's song parodies are fair use, > even though he sells them. That can't really be claimed without a case being brought against him. Michael Jackson, for example, probably could have made a case against WierdAl, but did not -- that does not automatically mean that WierdAl's use was fair-use in the slightest. In fact, it probably was not, but MJ made enough money that he probably also didn't want to the PR loss. > You distributing copies of a commercial > software to everyone is not fair use, even though you aren't making > money. It *is* absolutely fair use, if that commercial software *published* their code (in the definition I gave earlier). If you stole the code off their protected servers, it is not fair use. >> Well this is where one must make a distinction with fair-use -- if I >> re-publish my modifications then the code is still subject to the >> terms by the original author. If I make a copy for myself and run the >> problem for personal, non-commercial use, then I am in the domain of >> fair use and have no other obligations. > > Again, no. The GPL does not restrict your rights when running on > machines you control, but that's just because of the terms of the > license. Most commercial licenses include terms like "no reverse > engineering the software" that have nothing to do with distribution. Close-source software could automatically be considered "protected", but that is only out of kindness. Publishing software, even closed-source software opens a company to some level reverse-engineering by the nature of computers and by the fact that the techniques of turning machine code into assembly are well known. So they explicitly state that they do not give permission to do so, yet this is not worth much of anything except for the fact that most people are intimidated to go against a large software company to argue their rights. Apparently these companies have already seen this loophole and have made things like DRM to put a legalistic container around what would otherwise be de facto published (machine) code. But this is not a legit workaround either and companies have essentially stealing from the intellectual and creative communities. There is no legitimate argument against a personal user figuring out how software works for personal use. If they don't want people to "figure it out", they'll have to open stores where people can run their special software on machines that are under their control. I'm sorry, this is just the way it is -- everyone's just gone along with the program tacitly because they get intimidated by the legal system. But the law is for people, not for lawyers. -- MarkJ Tacoma, Washington -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
