| |||||||||||||
The kernel and BitKeeper part waysThe kernel and BitKeeper part waysPosted Apr 7, 2005 10:43 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415)In reply to: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways by Xman Parent article: The kernel and BitKeeper part ways
If you have received software legally, you do not need a licence to use it, including reverse engineering. There is no requirement to accept an EULA. Please learn what copyright law is.
(Log in to post comments)
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 7, 2005 12:43 UTC (Thu) by xanni (subscriber, #361) [Link] Unfortunately this is no longer the case in Australia. After signing the so-called "Free Trade Agreement" with the USA, courts in Australia now interpret copying into RAM as "fixing in a tangible medium", which means that loading a program or data into memory is subject to copyright law and must be authorised by the copyright holder.
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 7, 2005 15:27 UTC (Thu) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] OK, but my main point was that the first license was almost OSI approved. It didn't even mention reverse engineering, you had all the source code! You were only required to make it pass all regression tests after modifocations, including sending the changelog to the public server. It has been when somebody abused of this license that we took the slippery slope that in the end brought us here...
The kernel and BitKeeper part ways Posted Apr 7, 2005 20:04 UTC (Thu) by Xman (guest, #10620) [Link] Keep in mind open source software is frequently licensed through EULA's as well. The "legal" way that this particular person received BitKeeper, was through a EULA which included some restrictions on the use of the product. If the EULA is illegal, then this particular person had no legal means to obtain BitKeeper, which means they violated BitMover's copyrights in order to get the software. This is the same principle which protects the GPL.
licenses, contracts, and copyrights Posted Apr 7, 2005 21:45 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I'd like to clarify some of the legal issues that have been misstated in this thread.First, there are two entirely separate issues here: licensing under copyright law and contracts. You can't "break" a license, but you can break a contract. A license is never "binding" on a licensee, but a contract is binding on both parties. You need a license from the copyright owner to copy something. You don't need to execute a contract with him. You don't need a license to use a copy the copyright owner gave you. I'll take Xman's word for it that the mystery developer who spoiled it all got his copy from BitMover under a EULA (which is a contract) and assume that in the contract he promised not to reverse engineer. So copyright law and licenses have nothing to do with the controversy. As for severability, if there's a law making the reverse engineering clause unenforceable, that law could easily also nullify any severability or backup clause, so we just don't know. Example: California has a law that says a loan contract of a certain type that states an interest rate of >10% is enforced as if it says 0%. The rest of the contract still applies. But if there's a clause that says if the interest rate is found illegal, then the loan must be repaid immediately, that clause gets wiped out by the same law. When people write laws to forbid people from agreeing to certain things, they don't mess around.
licenses, contracts, and copyrights Posted Apr 8, 2005 0:18 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Thanks, giraffedata! Some people should have this tattooed on their foreheads.Reversed, of course.
|
|||||||||||||