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 opinion. I was writing from my recollection. I have investigated
this matter before and then I came to the conclusion that often you would be
able to make modifications and a court would not rule them illegal.
The law on this matter has not changed. That is why I am asking you for court
rulings telling me differently.
Your own writing contains inaccuracies and non documented claims.
>is proposing in this thread
An undocumented claim.
>The answers you seem to be looking for (now, at least) are local, but
earlier seemed more global.
Reading my previous posts you should have been able to get to know, that I
wanted to tell people that modifications made by you on your own computer
would be legal. Distributing them maybe not.
>Yes, some places of the world have rules
>what their own laws are, and perhaps most importantly - what they are doing
and why.
>abilities you refer to rely on local laws to make legal.
What you write shows a lack of knowledge about the eu law procedure. The law
in question stems from eu. For constitutionally reasons each country then
makes the eu law in question part of their own law system. In doing so each
country is not allowed to modify the eu law in question. Calling a law which
applies to all eu countries local is inaccurate.
>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.
I think you wrote that because you want to insinuate that I do not know about
this matter. I am not ignorant. And you have not rebutted my main claim.
>rules regarding interoperability
You insinuate that the law sets firm limits on when you can modify a piece of
software. Sometimes a law contains an exception. Sometimes the exception
becomes the main feature about a law. Regarding this law, I think, on the
matter of legal modifications, the exception provides a broad option to make
software modifications legally. The law lists a number of legal arguments for
modifying a piece of software. Should you want to make modifications about a
piece of software, you would try to make them such that they would be covered
by the listed arguments.
In result, often you will be able to make legal modifications about a piece
of software no matter what the license says and put it on your computer.
I guess your goal was to demonstrate my view on legal software modifications
is wrong. That you did not manage. It is important to tell other readers that
there are ways to legally modify non libre software.
>GPL again and how it relies on laws like this in order to be able to
function. So look, for example, at the GPL enforcements actions that Harald
Welte brought in the EU and you'll find courts siding with him that these
things can't be done with the permission of the copyright holder. In fact, if
modification were not the exclusive right of the copyright holder then this
aspect of the GPL could not be enforced and Harald Welte would not have been
as successful as he was. So it is good for us in the free world that it is.
The stronger these laws get the stronger copyleft gets. :)
Regarding your software on your computer this part is blether.
The fact that a given law grants you options to modify non libre software
legally, in no way affects gpl.
It seems your second aim about your posts, is making libre software the only
solution. I have explained there are options regarding modifying non libre
software. I do not encourage them because I do not encourage non libre
software on this forum. You could argue, that the modifications could be made
libre software and therefore be distributed legally. I know of no court
rulings about that. The non modified part of the non libre software would
still be non libre. I add, that in an email to me fsf wrote, you decide if
you want to install non libre software on your computer. Fsf does not intend
to limit that right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysOO33Nv3bI
At 41.40.
I think here Stallman refers to the procedure of reverse engineering.
Followed by making a libre piece of software. Apparently in usa that has to
be done by different persons for legal reasons. I do not know if this
procedure is legal in eu.
In the video Stallman mentions, that people may turn over the specifications
anonymously. Why that other than it is a matter of illegal leaking? Reverse
engineering is legal?
I presume, that you cannot make libre software stemming from illegally leaked
software. I know of no court rulings on that.
