-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Knipfer [MK] wrote:
MK> I have never heard of any software companies that penalized an end MK> user for modifying a program's compiled code to make it work to MK> their own needs. The fact that you've never heard this doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Also, if it hasn't happened, this doesn't mean that the company involved condones it. For one, those who alter programs don't usually go confessing this to the company that produces the software. Also, why go hollering that you've lost your license when you've *clearly* breached the license agreement. It's one thing to protest about licensing restrictions. It's another thing to breach it, get penalised and then protest. That's rather silly. If you don't like the licensing restrictions, do not agree to be bound by them. So don't buy a license for or use the program. Most law abiding individuals will just use Open Source software if they like modifying how programs work. MK> If a software company would revoke anyone's software license for MK> such, this would probably big make news and possibly blacklist the MK> software company. This would also provide the Open Source arena to MK> further promotions and emphasis on why proprietary software is bad. So it's right and within license agreement to do what you did? This is my only contention and the important one. Everything else is left to the users discretion to decide whether or not what they've done is safe, one of them being that, as far as they know, no-one else has lost their license doing it. MK> If someone intentionally modified a compiled program's code and MK> somehow mass distributed it via e-mail virus or alike with the MK> intent to cause some form of damage or harm to its end users and to MK> the software vendor's reputation, then this is definitely crossing MK> the line and would cause the software company to pursue legal MK> matters. You've sited one example. Does this make it the only way to cross the line? I don't think I'll really have you agreeing with me on this one. But I think I've made my position clear enough. In summary: Modifying the executable, as you did, is technically in breach of the user license agreement. You therefore do so at your own risk. Rationalizing why it's reasonable to overstep the agreement as you did and why Ritlabs wouldn't do anything about it doesn't suddenly make it right. This is a very slippery slope and a pre-emptive company may choose to take action based on the 'give and inch and they take a mile' principle. You have no ground to stand on if they choose to do so. So ... at your own risk. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator | OS: XP Pro (SP1) _ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iEYEARECAAYFAj6QQGEACgkQV8nrYCsHF+JykACdHZi2RbMAbEB+RNMuIXsZJWys hBAAoOoLp9nt34xuifWK1+ZwmOvYiPI6 =UnRu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
