On Sunday, June 9, 2013 4:08:54 PM UTC-5, zipher wrote: > >> 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.
Preach on my brother, Preach on! It's amazing how much control you can leverage on the populace of lemmings from a few well placed tv ads and some OP-ED propaganda. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
