On 9/27/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Nicol</b> <<a href="mailto:davidnicol@gmail.com">davidnicol@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Sorry; I didn't actually inspect the link I sent previously<br>to verify that it had no clicks at all to<br><br><a href="http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html">http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html</a><br><br>which says, once you legally obtain software, you may modify it,
<br>if you have the time and inclination.</blockquote><div><br>It cites <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html">17 USC 117</a>:<br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><span class="enumbell">
(a)</span>
<b class="labelleader"> Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— </b><span class="ptext-1">Notwithstanding the provisions of section
<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html">106</a>,
it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program
to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
computer program provided:
</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 80px;" class="psection-2">
<a name="a_1"></a>
<span class="enumbell">(1)</span>
<span class="ptext-2">that such a new copy or adaptation is created as
an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
</span>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 80px;"><a name="a_2"></a><span class="enumbell">(2)</span>
<span class="ptext-2">that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event
that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.</span><br></div><br>I assume he's referring to (1) above. But the adaptation is ONLY allowed if it's "essential". <br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">So if my daughter buys a commercial program that's written for Windows XP, and wants to use it on her Vista machine, but it won't work correctly, and some hacker has created a patch that will fix the problem, she's allowed to use that patch to modify the program. Adapting the program to run under Linux would probably be covered as well.
<br><br>If a blind person needs to have a program modified so that it will work correctly with text-to-speech readers, the copyright holder can't prohibit that adaptation, as it's "essential" to that person.
<br></div><br>If we stray too far from those two kinds of adaptations (platform and disability), we lose our protection under 17 USC 117(a)(1).<br><br>There is nothing that allows adaptation to add new functionality that isn't "essential" (whatever that is). And even under that provision, there is still no right to redistribute the adapted work.
<br><br>So I still say the guy's a wanker if he thinks we don't need a license to legally distribute his copyrighted work.<br>
</div></div>