Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[John Cowan]

Johnny A. Solbu scripsit:

> Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did
> buy it, then it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's
> property.

That copy was my property and not Red Hat's.  They were of course free
to make other copies, as was I.  Similarly, when I download a copy of
some open-source software, that copy belongs to me, and I can do what I
like with it.  That doesn't mean I own the copy*right*, just the copy.

> You would own it and could deny Redhat their use of it. I.e. If i
> bougth your car, I could deny you your use of the car, but if I
> licenced it, it would still be your car, but I got usage rights to it.

Just so.  My car is mine, and my copy of RHL is mine.  But my copy
of Windows is *not* mine, given the terms of the proprietary license.
In principle Microsoft could revoke the license at any time, and I'd have
to destroy the copy.  If I sell you the computer, the Windows license
does *not* go with it, nor do I retain it -- it evaporates.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
How they ever reached any conclusion at all is starkly unknowable
to the human mind.--"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[John Cowan]

David Woolley scripsit:

> You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but
> you can't buy the novel that it contains (the author will not assign
> copyright to you).

No, of course not.  But when I buy the book, the first-sale right is
exhausted; when I buy proprietary software, it is not, and I have no
right to resell.  The difference is that the book is purchased
whereas the proprietary software is only licensed.

> Incidenally, UK publishers do, or at least did, put constraints on
> the resale of books (not to be sold or lent in any cover other than
> the original).

That happens in the U.S. too.  A retailer can get full credit for a
book by returning just the cover, but they are then not entitled to
resell the rest of the book.  Exhaustion hasn't kicked in at that
point because the retailer is not an ultimate purchaser.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
I marvel at the creature: so secret and so sly as he is, to come sporting
in the pool before our very window.  Does he think that Men sleep without
watch all night?--Faramir
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[Johnny A. Solbu]

On Tuesday 10. March 2015 17.55, co...@ccil.org wrote:
> I think I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of
> Red Hat Linux back in 1999.  All the rest has been licensed under
> either a proprietary or an open-source license.

Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did buy it, then 
it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's property. You would own 
it and could deny Redhat their use of it. I.e. If i bougth your car, I could 
deny you your use of the car, but if I licenced it, it would still be your car, 
but I got usage rights to it.

The Redhat distribution you bought back in 1999 was a collection of Free and 
Open Source software that you got a license to use in any way you wanted. The 
difference between that and software from e.g. microsoft of Apple is that you 
also got a license to use the source code any way you wanted, as long as you 
followed the terms of the license.

-- 
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[David Woolley]

On 10/03/15 23:53, John Cowan wrote:

You didn't buy the software.  You bought a piece of hardware with a
>single copy.

By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.



You can buy a book (i.e. hardware consisting of paper and ink), but you 
can't buy the novel that it contains (the author will not assign 
copyright to you).


Incidenally, UK publishers do, or at least did, put constraints on the 
resale of books (not to be sold or lent in any cover other than the 
original).


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[John Cowan]

David Woolley scripsit:

> You didn't buy the software.  You bought a piece of hardware with a
> single copy.

By that definition, I don't buy books either, but that turns out not to
be the case.

> Red Hat don't even have the right to sell most of Linux as people like
> the FSF own it.

The FSF actually encourages people to sell copies of their software:
see .  In the past they
themselves have sold copies on magtape and later on CD at a high price:
see .

> A lot of what you were probably trying to say is US specific, as it
> relates to the first sale doctrine.

The first-sale doctrine also applies in the EU under the name of
"exhaustion", as well as in Canada and Australia.  In the EU, the
product must have been first sold within the EU in order for exhaustion
to kick in.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
It's like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver
spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, "I want to be
rich, too, so I'm going to start walking with a cane and I'm going to
act crotchety and I'm going to get liver disease. --Wil Shipley
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[David Woolley]

On 10/03/15 16:55, co...@ccil.org wrote:

I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of
Red Hat Linux back in 1999.


You didn't buy the software.  You bought a piece of hardware with a 
single copy.  Red Hat don't even have the right to sell most of Linux as 
people like the FSF own it.


A lot of what you were probably trying to say is US specific, as it 
relates to the first sale doctrine.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[cowan]

Thufir Hawat scripsit:

> Does the same logic apply to widgets?  If so, that would, potentially,
> kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse
> engineered from the original.

Cars and their parts are sold, not licensed.  If purchasers of
proprietary software would insist on buying software rather than licensing
it, the problem wouldn't arise.  Fortunately, books are also sold --
at least so far, though nothing stops book publishers from putting
the same sort of notice into each copy of a book and gutting the
used-book market.

(I'm 56.  I think I've bought software exactly once, a boxed set of
Red Hat Linux back in 1999.  All the rest has been licensed under
either a proprietary or an open-source license.)

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
You're a brave man! Go and break through the lines, and remember while
you're out there risking life and limb through shot and shell,
we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are!--Rufus T. Firefly


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[thufir]

On 2015-03-08 01:33 PM, John Cowan wrote:

Frankly, I have zero sympathy for Baystate's behavior.  Bowers offered to
license his technology on commercial terms, and they told him they thought
they could do it themselves.  They then licensed a copy of his work,
accepting in the process the license's prohibition on reverse engineering,
which they then proceeded to reverse engineer.  When Bowers sued, they
tried to claim that this part of the contract didn't apply to them.
Legally, they could have been right; ethically, their position is
bargain-basement.  Hard cases, as the saying is, make bad law, and now
we're stuck with it.



In terms of right/wrong, reverse engineering shrink-wrapped software, or 
firmware for something you buy off the shelf, *seems*, to me, distinct 
from what's described above, approaching someone, not negotiating, etc.  
I suppose it comes down to whether or not the binary has been legally 
obtained.


The problem is that when you get into EULA, then the precedent this sets 
allows a prohibition against reverse engineering most any proprietary 
software -- all that's needed is clause!  That surely wasn't the 
intention of the legislature in the US when they wrote laws about this.


Does the same logic apply to widgets?  If so, that would, potentially, 
kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse 
engineered from the original.




-Thufir
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss