In article <a__ol.23949$hx2.20...@newsfe19.iad>, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote: >Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> That bit of the law doesn't allow to hack the program >> you've cracked, though. > >No, as I've said, the part of the law that does is this: > <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf> Page 69 > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an > infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to > make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of > that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an > essential step in the utilization of the computer program in > conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other > manner, > >You've already been quoted a court case that gives enormous latitude >to which changes may be considered "essential", and that latitude >includes adding new functionality.
For those who've started reading this thread after a lot of the earlier stuff has "expired" from our isp's news-stuff (name?), could you please again quote that case (and any other you might have earlier quoted, too). THANKS! David _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
