Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> the only support you've offered is a bit of the USA's DMCA which
> says that the prohibition on "circumvention of technical measures"
> doesn't apply if you're doing it for interoperability.
You continue to fail to read the law properly:
<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf> Page 239
a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of
a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a particular portion of that
program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those
elements of the program that are necessary to achieve
interoperability of an independently created computer program
with other programs
That section should be informing you that "identifying and analyzing
those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve
interoperability" is an activity not prohibited by copyright.
> That paragraph is meaningless, because you're assuming your own
> idiosyncratic definitions of "interoperability", "program", "copying",
> "other", "plug-in", and so on. See other posts in this thread which
> point out your distortions.
On the contrary, my use of these words is in their everyday ordinary
context as understood by computer professionals. It is you who are
attempting to twist the meaning of these words in order to assert a
prohibition against interoperability which in fact copyright law
explicitly supports. It is as tortured a reading as depending on the
definition of "is" and it will do you about as much good.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
