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

2015-03-10 Thread 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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,

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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