-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Knipfer [MK] wrote:
>> The license states: >> ,---- >> |Also, you may not modify, decompile, disassemble, otherwise reverse >> |engineer, or transfer the program, or any subset of the program, except >> |to the extent and for the express purposes authorized by applicable law. >> |Any such unauthorised use shall result in immediate and automatic >> |termination of this licence and may result in criminal or civil >> |prosecution. >> '---- >> You may not modify the program or any subset of the program except to >> the extent and for the purpose authorized by applicable law. MK> How I see it, if the program does not allow a certain functionality MK> that accommodates the end user and does not harm the program code MK> and it is not mass distributed, modifying (or apply certain program MK> hacks) to make the certain functionality in a program is probably MK> okay to do. Sure agreed ... and this is why you'll likely not receive any heat from Ritlabs. However, whichever way you take it, doing what you do with Resource Hacker *does* amount to modifying the program. MK> There are many hacks to many programs where the software vendors MK> eventually add that lacking functionality to the program to avoid MK> future hacks or slight modifications to the program code. Yes. I grant you this as well. However, hacking of this sort should be done with care since it technically amounts to a licensing breach. This isn't the GNU license. :) MK> Correct. If you read the Microsoft Windows software license, you MK> are using Windows at your own risk and no guarantee. The TB! license says this as well. This has nothing to do with altering the program. It just has to do with using the program with the understanding that no program is bug free, no program will work in an absolutely predicatable way on all machines and their variable configurations. As a result errors and data loss could very well occur and Ritlabs shouldn't be held responsible. Most software license agreements will have this stipulated in it. MK> So there is no difference and there are hundreds of hacks for MK> Windows functionality. Hacking is now a loose term and covers a lot of things one does to tweak an application. For Windows, a lot of legitimate workarounds and modifications are called hacks simply because they aren't readily apparent and aren't implemented through hitting an official configuration panel option switch. MK> If RIT Labs is against these hacks to accommodate the end users MK> needs in the program where these hacks work, then they should add MK> the functionality and/or feature to the program. Yes, and they do this sort of thing, as we speak, through feature additions and enhancements. They may not occur at the rate and in the way all users wish. However, this doesn't mean that unsatisfied users now have the right to modify the program to do as they wish. If you embark on such practices you definitely do so at your own risk. This is why the free software foundation and Open Soure development exists. So that users aren't bound by such licensing restrictions. MK> These hacks only show the lack of a program's functionality and ease MK> of use to the end users. No program will please all end users. MK> For instance, if RIT Labs would allow users to accept the Next Unread MK> key shortcut behavior where it accept 'n', no hacks would have been MK> suggested. Since it is possible to do, a hack or slight modification is MK> available. Such modifications are only done at the end user's risk. Yes, at the risk of using one's user license or more. Where do you draw the line with these modifications? Also, though you haven't distributed a copy of your hacked executable, you've provided information on how to do the hack. This isn't necessarily a self-righteous post on my part since I have personally modified the PGP plug-in dll to better display the PGP version that I was using. I however embarked on it knowing the technical licensing breach. However, I thought it harmless to Ritlab's interests and that they wouldn't mind. :) They apparently don't since I'm sure they knew about it. They may do the same in your case but we must realize the thin line we walk when doing such things, the grey area we're now in and that we are no longer on legally firm ground. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iEYEARECAAYFAj6QNTgACgkQV8nrYCsHF+I2zACdH/slNInOo3t0I/sYg6EJTZr+ 9LoAn2ZtSoCE7iyyfKDGIWLY9mgcRGEE =xjlf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
