Reading back, what I wrote was rather different from what I meant...
Firstly, as CalmStorm has pointed out, I used the term 'pirate' to mean
'illegal downloader'. I suspect that was intended to refer to the attitude a
proprietary software developer would likely hold towards those who source
"You are probably looking for inaccuracies in my posts in order to undermine
my position, "
Not at all; I was only pointing out changes that I perceived. For example:
"Calling a law which applies to all eu countries local is inaccurate."
In your very first post you were not indicating any
You are probably looking for inaccuracies in my posts in order to undermine
my position, saying there are legal means to modify a piece of software on
your own computer, no matter what the license says.
What I initial wrote about modifying legally in a response to ignacio was not
a legal
Trademarks are the only thing that should be respected. and perhaps they
should be strengthened...
Alas, last night I was in a foul mood for some reason...
with regard to some of this thread's content.
IT just seemed like certain people thought people shouldn't reveal secrets
that
Sorry, I let my anger run away with me.
Yes, Software patents are evil, and yea your absolutely right,
law enforcement does not justify not leaking through morally...
70+ years after the author dies though I do believe is an evil idea for
copyright,
I appologize, I would remove that last
I tend to not agree with RMS's, what I would call, pedantry about exact
terminology, but he is definitely right about the term "intellectual
property". I happen to think that copyrights and patents should be abolished,
each for different reasons, but trademarks should not. I would even be
Assume this: all general statements you encounter that are formulated using
“intellectual property” will be false.
Every time I hear the words 'Intellectual Property' I reach for my Browning!
>Personally, I don't think intellectual property or software patents deserve
ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER!
I largely agree with you here, but- just to be pedantic- aren't software
patents a type of 'intellectual property' anyway? Regardless, it may also be
worthy of note that we guard
Now I notice your argument changes slightly to be about interoperability,
which is the first time you've raised that particular point and is different
from modifications in general. I imagine it's because of what you've been
reading. And yes, some places of the world have rules regarding
Personally, I don't think intellectual property or software patents deserve
ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER!
seriously... that's what allows people to abuse copyright for 70+ years and
that's after the original creator is dead.
bs... the author doesn't care only the company does...
besides, they
I have now read the wiki and the links to the laws in my country. I say you
are wrong.
You have to differentiate between, you make modifications and make them
public. This is illegal.
You make modifications for testing. That is legal if the software still
performs the same task on the
"I have heard of no eu court ruling modifying not legal."
Of course there are laws in the EU covering modification. I'll just point at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Programs_Directive where it mentions
"the translation, adaptation or other alteration to the program" as being the
>why does this thread even exist?
Because I want to know.
>is proposing in this thread (leaking the source code of proprietary
programs)
No, I have not.
>that we'd never be able to legally modify
I have heard of no eu court ruling modifying not legal.
> share
That may be illegal. When I
"I'm no expert in EU law, and so I'm likely wrong here, but it may very well
be illegal."
Thanks to things like the Berne Convention, copyright is recognized in almost
every country of the world. And so the distribution of a program without the
permission of the copyright holder (the
>I will say that regarding eu law what Ignacio writes about >legality is
likely not correct
I'm no expert in EU law, and so I'm likely wrong here, but it may very well
be illegal. The issue is that, even if copyright law does not prevent use of
leaked source code, it is also a trade
>The legality aspect
I was referring to Ignacio's pieces of information saying that any source
software obtained on the basis of illegal actions would result in computer
users not being able to make use of the provided source software legally.
> It really is that simple
I am not going to
> The legality aspect on getting the source software in question public was
not part of my questions.
But it is. The legality is exactly why no one on the inside leaks proprietary
source code. It really is that simple.
I suppose you have a preconception that these companies must have some
My questions are about the organizational part of keeping the intel me and
amd psp software closed. And what actions have been made, if any, to get the
source code. I asked on this forum because maybe somebody here had knowledge
about the companies or knew a paper or article on the subject.
svh...@gmail.com wrote:
How do chip manufacturers accomplish to keep the pieces of software that
runs their hardware secret?
This assumes something we don't know to be true. The private key for
Intel's backdoor "Management Engine", for instance, might be shared among
some people. Just
I fully agree with your second point- better do it legitimately than have a
project constantly bear the threat of legal action, subsequently deterring
newcomers from our community out of doubt about legality.
Your first point is also fairly reasonable, but it unfortunately seems that
>Your answers confirm to me, that we do not know how they >manage their
secrets.
We do know the basic details. As others have outlined above, a combination of
legal obligations and careful access management keep the risk of disclosure
low. Specifics might not be public, though.
>We do
Your answers confirm to me, that we do not know how they manage their
secrets. We do not how many people has the intel me and amd psp source
software, their respective encryption keys and what else relevant software in
terms of a libre software computer. Likely it is a system of need to know
"Why does no insider disclose the non libre computer software?"
"Who, how and how many guard the secret parts of software on hardware?"
1. If there's something illegal in the *ware : The insider must disclose it.
It is a duty, both ethical and legal, to dennounce the violations of people's
If they ever do, they should promptly translate it to make it intelligible
for the most of us. Unless they do, this will happen:
https://youtu.be/8gpjk_MaCGM
"Why does no insider disclose..."
Because the insider will lose their job. And potentially get sued for any
number of things: copyright violations, trade secret violations, violating
the non-disclosure agreement they signed when they started working there...
Maybe charge them with
In medieval cities, craftsmen tended to form associations based on their
trades, confraternities of textile workers, masons, carpenters, carvers,
glass workers, each of whom controlled secrets of traditionally imparted
technology, the "arts" or "mysteries" of their crafts.
...
The guild was
26 matches
Mail list logo
