The drifted SCO thread has opened a new arena. "IS there a place for a de facto IP freedom realm"

[Monty J. Harder]

On 9/27/07, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry;  I didn't actually inspect the link I sent previously
> to verify that it had no clicks at all to
>
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
>
> which says, once you legally obtain software, you may modify it,
> if you have the time and inclination.


It cites 17 USC
117<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html>
:

(a) * Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
*Notwithstanding
the provisions of section
106<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html>,
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:
 (1) 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
(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.

I assume he's referring to (1) above.  But the adaptation is ONLY allowed if
it's "essential".

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.

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.

If we stray too far from those two kinds of adaptations (platform and
disability), we lose our protection under 17 USC 117(a)(1).

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.

So I still say the guy's a wanker if he thinks we don't need a license to
legally distribute his copyrighted work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20070928/e06f9c0e/attachment-0001.htm