Canon legal response
Posted Jan 13, 2013 2:48 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata
In reply to: Canon legal response
Parent article: Testing Magic Lantern 2.3
If the new software is GPL, and reverse-engineered, I don't see how
it can be a derivative.
I agree that the derivative work thing doesn't stop anyone from installing Magic Lantern. I was just commenting on the statement (second hand and anonymous) in the Canonrumors review of the expensive camera that Canon would use legal measures to stop people from converting the cheap camera into the expensive one. You're pointing out that if Canon's power to do that is based on copyright law, then the Canonrumors article is irrelevant to the LWN article about Magic Lantern.
Perhaps there is a shrink-wrap agreement or something, but I have not seen them on cameras either.
Have you bought a camera with $4000 worth of software restrictions (price difference between the expensive and cheap camera)? It's considerably more likely that a purchaser would have to make certain promises to get one of those than to get typical consumer items. Trying to make sense of the "Canon would bring the might of its legal team" statement, I'm surmising that Canon does in fact require this kind of contract.
to post comments)