What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then later reading the commented listings that ran in Color Computer Magazine. (TO avoid a copyright fight, and because M$ refused to grant them permission, CCM ran only the comments and memory locations, leaving the reader to run their own dissassembly for the opcodes.)
The only ethical problem would be lifting the code and reusing it without permission and I think we all know that is wrong.
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical.... If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
I disagree here. I am a strong believer that people should be able to trade goods/services for prices/conditions they mutually agree upon. If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y
> I think it is morally repugnant of you to break our agreement and decompile.
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale it IS a sale. If I buy a copy of Microsoft Windows from Newegg.com I did just that, I BOUGHT a copy of Windows. That means I can do anything with that copy, including read it. I can even copy it in whole or in part so long as such activity falls under the backup exception written into the law or by Fair Use. Of course any other reproduction is forbidden by the artifical monopoly rights granted to the author by copyright. While I have a lot of problems with how copyrights are currently operated (eternal instead of "limited times" as prescribed by the Constituition) I don't have a major problem with that limitation.
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself. What a load of fetid dingos kidneys! Ford can't forbid me from taking apart a Caddy and not only making, but SELLING plans; but you think your algorithms are so freaking special that you want the government to put me in jail for the crime of reading them? What are you smoking?
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself
Sure. I was thinking of this as an example when I wrote my last post. I could write a book, and say to you, "Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that. If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it. But don't buy it, knowing what terms I've laid out, and
If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it.
You can certainly restrict your customers such terms -- as long as you convince the buyer to read and sign a legally binding contract prior to the sale.
If you don't get a signature, you can't expect any restrictions.
Your approach is perfectly consistent and reasonable.
I don't like it, however. I prefer having standard terms for goods that are sold. No special shrink wrap agreements for mass-produced hammers. No special shrink wrap agreements for software. No unusual "metaphysically ethereal" constraints following around something I've, ostensibly, purchased.
I like that special terms need to be deliberate and targeted, rather than mass produced.
If the EULA is clearly presented and the consumer can understand it, then why not. I just know that I wouldn't buy clothes packaged in a label that said: "NOT TO BE WORN BY ACTUAL PEOPLE. HIGHLY FLAMABLE. IF YOU BURN AND DIE, WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE."
Why do you think I am for hiding or "tricking" people? I said in my original post, in very clear terms, that conditions are only valid if the buyer understands and agrees to them.
"Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that.
You're serious, aren't you? I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset. You really think that that kind of unenforcable agreement for artificial restriction on your "Intellectual Property" is morally correct and promotes innovation? (Don't answer that.)
(It's not moral or legal to sign yourself into slavery; the same will one day be said of "IP" artificial scarcit
I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset.
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights. Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If you don't want to abide by those conditions: DON'T FREAKING BUY WHAT I'M SELLING. Have a little restraint, Mr. Consumer. Jebus.
I am 100% for free trade between people. You, on the othe
Finally, capitalism works. In a true capitalistic marketplace, having unnecessary, artificial conditions wouldn't be benefitial to the seller, since other sellers could enter the market without such fluff conditions and make the sale.
Wow. Your talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly. Your 100% free trade would work just fine if copyright did not create an artificial monopoly which is why there are laws spelling out what can and can't be done with copyrighted works If people enter in
Wow. Your[sic] talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly.
He actually didn't start out talking about the law at all. He simply said that if two parties agree to something, then morally they should do what they said they would do. That's all. A simple and reasonable idea. And he's saying that if one party doesn't want to do what they say, then morally they shouldn't enter into the agreement in the first place.
You know, when I bought a boxed copy of Windows XP Professional, I don't remember signing anything. In fact, it wasn't until I was installing it on my computer in order to use it that I was presented with a legal contract to which I was asked to affix my 'digital signature' to agree to certain conditions for its use.
Now what if I bought the CD, took it home, and set about decompiling or reverse engineering this copy of Windows I just bought. Well, there's this clause in that EULA that says I can't do th
The point I'm trying to make is that while the EULA may be a contract, it's only required that I agree to its terms before installing and using it, not at the point of sale before purchasing it. Now naturally, IANAL, but tell me, am I wrong?
You said that you need to agree to the term to continue the installation... BUT... What is freaking forcing you to agree to the terms to continue the installation ? If you don't agree to the term, nothing stop you from installing this program, since you don't agree w
Actually any installer program that has a licence agreement step in it will generally cancel installation if you don't accept the agreement. So, you have to accept the agreement to go through with installation of the software, or the installer stops you from installing it.;)
What I was getting at originally was that if you never even run the installer but rather just skip ahead to decompiling the software, you've never agreed to the licence terms, including the part about not decompiling it.
What I mean is that if you don't agree to the agreement, nothing stop you from clicking on the I accept button, since it means nothing because you haven't agreed to it and nothing force you not to click on that button.. Is that clearer now ??
Um, yeah, I guess it's clearer. The thing is, though, that the licence agreement is a contract and if you click the accept button you're bound by its terms.
What binds the actual button as being an acceptance of the contract ? The contract itself.. and if you don't accept it, I don't see any law anywhere that would force it down on you;) this is just like clicking next..
If you think I'm bad, then just get a program that click randomly on the screen for you, and launch it until it get the install right =)
You can't impose unlawful conditions. Freedom is nothing without laws. The fundamental principle here is that no one can freely contract to contravene the law. Does that help?
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights.
*YOUR* mindset is the one that strips inviduals of their rights.
Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that?
You should, and you are able to do that. Make a sales contract with me. If you want to take away some of my rights, you need to give me the agreement on a paper and then we go over it, agree that those restrictions are valid ones a
My biggest problem with that is that I think the freedom to do stuff like decompiling or reverse engineering code is extremely important, both to me personally and to the industry as a whole. However, the people in the market for most software doesn't give a flying shit. Market forces are insufficient to ensure us that freedom, so I think the government ought to, and to some degree does. The other problem is that the "contract" has no consideration, is not available at the time of sale, typically isn't r
Ahem. Last time I checked Ford didn't make Caddys. So I doubt they'd have any qualms about your taking one apart and selling the plans. They might even encourage it!
When you think about it - you can overwrite most laws (non-criminal laws) with a contract - so long as the contract is not illegal (i.e. a contract that between groups to rob a bank is not legal). A good example is contracts that break the "employment at will" clause that many states use.
So if I write some material and I state that part of our agreement is that you cannot read certain sections of it - by purchasing it you are agreeing to my terms and can be held liable in a civil court. Remember - in term
IANAL but it seems to me that these arguments for click through EULAs fail on the basis of what I understand contract law to be. That is, there is no contract unless both sides recieve something of value. Now lets looks at software: I buy some software from a store, I pay the store money, they give me a box that contains a product. At this point a contract has been excercised - the store gets money, I get the the full use of the product I have purchased so everybopdy gets what they deserve. I then open
The trade of value occurs at purchase (you gave money for the box and its contents). Since it is not feasible to sit down with a lawyer at a retail store for each purchase - there is a delay from when you purchase the product to when you see the EULA. You can return the product to the store if you are not happy with the EULA. TO say that since the EULA was not presented in visible writing prior to the purchase is not valid BECAUSE you have the option for a full refund. You have the option to read that EU
There is one problem with this - try returning an opened box of software to any store. Almost all retailers these days have a clause on the reciept that you recieved at the time of purchase that they will not accept any returns of opened software. You can only exchange it for the exact same product (ie, if the media is defective). This effectively kills any remedy you have under the EULA. Remember, boys and girls, the software giants sell to the wholesalers, big retailers, and big corporations (who have
That clause - in all reality - means dick. You would be surprised what a few carefully laid out words will do to a store clerk. Something along the lines of - you can take this product or I am calling my credit card company who will then refuse to pay you AND you will have to come to my home at MY convenience to pick it up. But for those who do not use credit cards the following words work well "If you do not accept the return of this product with its receipt - which is within the 30 day LEGAL return pe
So, you're saying we should know our rights regarding contract law when it's between us and the store, but not when it's between us and you? You want us to buy your product, then go through all kinds of hassle to return it when we don't accept your EULA which isn't valid anyway?! That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard!
Copyright and Fair Use applies to YOU TOO, ASSHOLE! If you don't like it it is your fucking responsibility not to sell your software if you don't want people to use it -- once I buy
What on gods green earth are you babbling about? Did someone hit you over the head with a retarded stick? Would someone mod this person flame/idiot?
Where in my post do I say *I* am selling a product.
Where in my post do I say that *I* post a EULA.
Once you buy software it is yours to use so long as you obey the EULA. Again - if you want to test the waters on this - break the EULA go to the company and admit to them you broke the EULA and then make a post from your friends computer informing us that you
An EULA is only valid if both parites agree to it. However, it can also be valid if one party can litigate the other into oblivion without even going to trial. Like the other poster says: Break EULA, get pummeled into nothingness by the company's lawyers.
First you imply that the actual laws are irrelevant to your views on morality:
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue.
Then when someone argues on moral grounds:
If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y (perhaps Y is not decompiling the source), and you agree to these terms, I think it is morally repugnant of you to break our agreement and decompile.
> First you imply that the actual laws are irrelevant to your views on > morality:
When a society is correctly operating, laws codify morals. In our current dystopia of the Law divorced from Truth and Justice that isn't always the case. It is the Right, nay it is the Duty, of every citizen in a free society to violate an unjust law as an act of civil disobiedience.
And yes, I have done so publicly, specifically by confessing to violating the DMCA by viewing DVDs on my laptop in a letter to President
All well and good, but when you "buy" Windows XP in a store, you aren't buying Windows XP, you're buying a LICENSE to use Windows XP in binary form. Huge difference.
I haven't looked at my Windows XP box in a couple years, and the shrinkwrap is long gone, but as a I recall, the stipulation that you are buying a license to use the software application in binary form and NOT the software application itself (in which case you'd be getting the source) is clearly stated on the box/wrapper. Before you purchase it
> All well and good, but when you "buy" Windows XP in a store, you aren't > buying Windows XP, you're buying a LICENSE to use Windows XP in binary > form. Huge difference.
Still hung up on that misconception. No, a license is only in effect if I sign a contract changing the sale into a limited license. They can print "By buying this hammer you agree you will ONLY drive our brand of nails and strike no other object with this tool." on the side, stock the shelves of Home Depot with them and get exact
You can own an idea, just not exclusively. But you can exclusively own the particular implementation of an idea.
YOU'RE confusing a sale of property with a license to use the implementation of an idea.
Your hammer example only works if I sell you a hammer, or a TV, or a car. Hammers, TVs, and cars aren't copyrighted. Software vendors aren't selling you their products...they're selling you a LICENSE to use their products. Fundamental difference.
> Software vendors aren't selling you their products...they're selling > you a LICENSE to use their products.
Nope. on the rare occasion I buy software, I BUY it. You do not need a license to use software anymore than you need one to read a book, or even to check one out of a public library.
> Then the GPL, the MPL, and every other open source license, is invalid. > That makes WhiteBox Linux illegal.
Again, you are quite mistaken. You may download as many copies of WhiteBox from whereever you p
Strange...you say one thing, but then you say another.
First, licenses don't mean anything, they're not binding, because you haven't signed anything.
But then you say the GPL provides a license, yet nobody has to sign anything to use GPL'd software, or copy it, or distribute it, as long as they meet its conditions. So if I don't have to sign anything, then the GPL isn't binding.
Which is it?
If the GPL can say that distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license, and the license is binding,
> If the GPL can say that distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license, and the license is binding, how can that be? There's no contract.
Er, because if you distribute it, you're distributing someone else's copyrighted works. *DISTRIBUTING*. Not copying/modifying/studying for your own private use, *DISTRIBUTING*. The only way you could do that is with the copyright holder's permission, which happens to be spelled out in the GPL. That's how copyright law works, and that's the whole
The other poster keeps repeating, over and over, that if there's "no signed contract" the agreement is not binding. That if he doesn't sign a contract with the software company, he can do whatever he wants. I disagree.
My point is that the GPL does not require such a signed contract, only an action on the part of the licensee, to be binding. Right?
If the GPL is binding without a signed contract, by virtue of an action taken by the licensee (in this case distribution), why is another license (such as the In
> But then you say the GPL provides a license, yet nobody has to sign > anything to use GPL'd software, or copy it, or distribute it, as long > as they meet its conditions. So if I don't have to sign anything, then > the GPL isn't binding.
Exactly correct. If you copy a GNU program and distribute it you do not have to accept the GPL. However when RMS and his squadron of elite attack lawyer ninjas descend upon you for violating their copyright, smiting thee with their rightous fury, only saying "I
The GPL doesn't say distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license. Rather, the GPL can grant you the right, which you wouldn't otherwise have had, to distribute the work, provided you comply with the provisions. So when you distribute a GPL'd work, you haven't implicitly agreed to the GPL - it's just that if you don't, you're infringing copyright law. (If you get sued, you can choose whether it's a copyright or a contract violation.)
A EULA is different because it isn't granting you dis
> My point is that the GPL does not require such a signed contract, only an action on the part of the licensee, to be binding. Right?
No, wrong. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL to distribute the works, but in that case, you would be infringing the copyright of the author. Copyright is infringed when you distribute their work without their permission. That's what copyright is - a monopoly on *distribution*.
> If the GPL is binding without a signed contract, by virtue of an action taken
You have done a fantastic job of explaining exactly what the current situation is and why the "well my box says..." arguments are incorrect. Cheers to you! Anybody that has confusions about the issues should read your thread. I owe you one beer.
If you don't like the conditions of the offer, don't buy the product.
That is exactly what the Uniform Commercial Code is about, ensuring everyone knows and can agree in a meaningful way to the terms of the transaction. Without a signed contract specifying different terms though, the UCC says that a sale of goods transfers a clear title to those goods, meaning there can't be any conditions attached.
You're talking about specific laws here. The grandparent post was merely saying that violating an a
> The grandparent post was merely saying that violating an agreement is > immoral.
True enough but this whole matter revolves around whether an agreement exists. When people disagree on such matters, that is where the Law comes into the discussion and it is very clear on the point.
The original poster holds that as the creator and owner of a work he has absolute power to dictate the terms and conditions it can be USED under, and that by purchasing his work I MUST agree to those terms. I hold that he
He isn't saying that laws and morality are unrelated, only that the relationship ought to be associated with a clear, unidirectional causality, and therefore that moral decisions are not dictated by the law.
If it's a unidirectional causality, then a moral assessment should never depend on any particular laws. The original poster claimed that unapproved decompilation was immoral. Then jmorris42 came around and started citing specific laws to prove that he had the legal right to do so.
> What's worse is he assumed that hypothetical agreement wasn't in writing > and proceeded to draw further conclusions from that assumption
No, read up the thread, in the very first post I excluded the case of corporate site licensing and other such real signed contract sort of software licensing it should be clear I am discussing consumer EULAs.
I assert that since EULAs are wrong on both moral and legal grounds, either of which alone is cause for ignoring them. I claim that I have as much right to r
But if you do buy the product, don't you think it is immoral to break the agreement you made with the seller (whether it is a signed commercial agreement or not)?
I made no agreement with the seller. If the seller wants an agreement, he can give me the forms to sign and I will put my John Hancock on the line if I am willing to make that agreement. Just because I clicked past some text to get the program to install doesn't mean I agreed to it.
You would give the sellers all the power. You can't return the p
I made no agreement with the seller. If the seller wants an agreement, he can give me the forms to sign and I will put my John Hancock on the line if I am willing to make that agreement. Just because I clicked past some text to get the program to install doesn't mean I agreed to it.
There's some confusion here... I (and some other people) were saying that decompilation is immoral if the agreement you had doesn't allow it. You (and others) are arguing that a post-purchase EULA doesn't constitute a mut
I (and some other people) were saying that decompilation is immoral if the agreement you had doesn't allow it. You (and others) are arguing that a post-purchase EULA doesn't constitute a mutual agreement. I'm not exactly how those two issues got mixed up in this thread,
The person you replied to said:
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
So signed contracts were excluded from this subbranch of the thread, at least.
But you're overcomplicating the matter. A signed contract can add ethical issues to anything.
True... What I *meant* to convey was that the intent of "anti-decompilation" clause might be to hide proprietary company secrets -- to protect an R&D investment. Maybe the seller doesn't really mind if you decompile to interoperate, but can't figure out a safe way to say that in the contract. In such a situation, there are ethical issues related to how much of the decompiled source code can you look at
It's that mutually agreed condition part that is problematic. When I buy hardware or software, I don't normally agree to any conditions on it. If I did, your philosophy would have merit. There are even good examples of things you buy where you must agree to conditions (like cell phones); you read a contract and sign your name. Software and hardware companies want to have it both ways. They want an enforceable contract that users agree to, but they also want to present their wares in a friendly way that makes people think they are buying something normally.
Software and hardware companies want to have it both ways. They want an enforceable contract that users agree to, but they also want to present their wares in a friendly way that makes people think they are buying something normally.
I agree with you fully. Burying what you can and can't do in a EULA, one that you can't read until you take the software home and start installing it, is not what I have in mind. If they wanted to impose such conditions on the software's use, it would behoove them to have on
(I wasn't the author of the grandparent post) What if I buy some software but do not get to see the EULA until after I have purchased it (say, it isn't available online) and, after purchasing it and reading the EULA, I am not permitted to return the product for a refund? Am I still obligated to follow the EULA in that case?
Personally I don't think a EULA that is hidden like that should be binding. I'm not pro-tricking consumers. If a seller wants to place limitations on how his product is used, he needs to make the limitations crystal clear to the potential buyer before any money changes hands. The buyer should then think about whether the goods/conditions are worth the price being asked, and make their decision based on that balance.
What about EULAs that are deliberately written in a style/technical language unreadable to the majority of the buyers ? Or written with intent to discourage complete reading (a EULA of 125 pages for instance, with 75% of its scentences longer than 10 lines and each one containing 15 buzwords that you have to go lookup online. NOBODY should be asked to read and accept all that. It's just plain stupid)
That sounds reasonable to me. Unfortunately, with the exception of EULAs that are available online, I do not know of a single local software store here that would allow you to return software because you did not accept the EULA (but had opened the software). Granted, I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, so it may be different in the U.S., or even in other cities in Canada. But I have tried returning software before when I did not accept the EULA, to CompuSmart and to FutureShop, and neither place would a
If you've got any copyright or patent on your product, you've got a monopoly on it: if I need such a thing, I've got no choice but to buy it from you. So I've got no way of bargaining over conditions of sale: you can force me to sign up to any conditions you like. Why should I feel any moral responsibility for an agrement that has been forced on me like that?
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then later reading the commented listings that ran in Color Computer Magazine. (TO avoid a copyright fight, and because M$ refused to grant them permission, CCM ran only the comments and memory locations, leaving the reader to run their own dissassembly for the opcodes.)
Regardless of the ethics, reading other people's code is, IMHO, the single best way to learn how coding works. And decompiling from objec
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better
not refuse.
What ethical problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then later reading the commented listings that ran in Color Computer Magazine. (TO avoid a copyright fight, and because M$ refused to grant them permission, CCM ran only the comments and memory locations, leaving the reader to run their own dissassembly for the opcodes.)
The only ethical problem would be lifting the code and reusing it without permission and I think we all know that is wrong.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree here. I am a strong believer that people should be able to trade goods/services for prices/conditions they mutually agree upon. If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:5, Interesting)
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale it IS a sale. If I buy a copy of Microsoft Windows from Newegg.com I did just that, I BOUGHT a copy of Windows. That means I can do anything with that copy, including read it. I can even copy it in whole or in part so long as such activity falls under the backup exception written into the law or by Fair Use. Of course any other reproduction is forbidden by the artifical monopoly rights granted to the author by copyright. While I have a lot of problems with how copyrights are currently operated (eternal instead of "limited times" as prescribed by the Constituition) I don't have a major problem with that limitation.
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself. What a load of fetid dingos kidneys! Ford can't forbid me from taking apart a Caddy and not only making, but SELLING plans; but you think your algorithms are so freaking special that you want the government to put me in jail for the crime of reading them? What are you smoking?
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure. I was thinking of this as an example when I wrote my last post. I could write a book, and say to you, "Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that. If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it. But don't buy it, knowing what terms I've laid out, and
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
You can certainly restrict your customers such terms -- as long as you convince the buyer to read and sign a legally binding contract prior to the sale.
If you don't get a signature, you can't expect any restrictions.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
I don't like it, however. I prefer having standard terms for goods that are sold. No special shrink wrap agreements for mass-produced hammers. No special shrink wrap agreements for software. No unusual "metaphysically ethereal" constraints following around something I've, ostensibly, purchased.
I like that special terms need to be deliberate and targeted, rather than mass produced.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Why do you think I am for hiding or "tricking" people? I said in my original post, in very clear terms, that conditions are only valid if the buyer understands and agrees to them.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
this is a disclaimer, not a licence agreeement
it is very much different from
"NOT TO BE WORN BY ACTUAL PEOPLE. YOU WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU WEAR THIS GARMENT. NO EXCUSES."
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1, Flamebait)
You're serious, aren't you? I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset. You really think that that kind of unenforcable agreement for artificial restriction on your "Intellectual Property" is morally correct and promotes innovation? (Don't answer that.)
(It's not moral or legal to sign yourself into slavery; the same will one day be said of "IP" artificial scarcit
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Very.
I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset.
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights. Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If you don't want to abide by those conditions: DON'T FREAKING BUY WHAT I'M SELLING. Have a little restraint, Mr. Consumer. Jebus.
I am 100% for free trade between people. You, on the othe
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Wow. Your talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly. Your 100% free trade would work just fine if copyright did not create an artificial monopoly which is why there are laws spelling out what can and can't be done with copyrighted works If people enter in
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
He actually didn't start out talking about the law at all. He simply said that if two parties agree to something, then morally they should do what they said they would do. That's all. A simple and reasonable idea. And he's saying that if one party doesn't want to do what they say, then morally they shouldn't enter into the agreement in the first place.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
You know, when I bought a boxed copy of Windows XP Professional, I don't remember signing anything. In fact, it wasn't until I was installing it on my computer in order to use it that I was presented with a legal contract to which I was asked to affix my 'digital signature' to agree to certain conditions for its use.
Now what if I bought the CD, took it home, and set about decompiling or reverse engineering this copy of Windows I just bought. Well, there's this clause in that EULA that says I can't do th
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
You said that you need to agree to the term to continue the installation... BUT... What is freaking forcing you to agree to the terms to continue the installation ? If you don't agree to the term, nothing stop you from installing this program, since you don't agree w
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Actually any installer program that has a licence agreement step in it will generally cancel installation if you don't accept the agreement. So, you have to accept the agreement to go through with installation of the software, or the installer stops you from installing it. ;)
What I was getting at originally was that if you never even run the installer but rather just skip ahead to decompiling the software, you've never agreed to the licence terms, including the part about not decompiling it.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
If you think I'm bad, then just get a program that click randomly on the screen for you, and launch it until it get the install right =)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
*YOUR* mindset is the one that strips inviduals of their rights.
Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that?
You should, and you are able to do that. Make a sales contract with me. If you want to take away some of my rights, you need to give me the agreement on a paper and then we go over it, agree that those restrictions are valid ones a
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
So if I write some material and I state that part of our agreement is that you cannot read certain sections of it - by purchasing it you are agreeing to my terms and can be held liable in a civil court. Remember - in term
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Copyright and Fair Use applies to YOU TOO, ASSHOLE! If you don't like it it is your fucking responsibility not to sell your software if you don't want people to use it -- once I buy
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Where in my post do I say *I* am selling a product.
Where in my post do I say that *I* post a EULA.
Once you buy software it is yours to use so long as you obey the EULA. Again - if you want to test the waters on this - break the EULA go to the company and admit to them you broke the EULA and then make a post from your friends computer informing us that you
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
First you imply that the actual laws are irrelevant to your views on morality:
Then when someone argues on moral grounds:
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
> morality:
When a society is correctly operating, laws codify morals. In our current dystopia of the Law divorced from Truth and Justice that isn't always the case. It is the Right, nay it is the Duty, of every citizen in a free society to violate an unjust law as an act of civil disobiedience.
And yes, I have done so publicly, specifically by confessing to violating the DMCA by viewing DVDs on my laptop in a letter to President
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
I haven't looked at my Windows XP box in a couple years, and the shrinkwrap is long gone, but as a I recall, the stipulation that you are buying a license to use the software application in binary form and NOT the software application itself (in which case you'd be getting the source) is clearly stated on the box/wrapper. Before you purchase it
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
> buying Windows XP, you're buying a LICENSE to use Windows XP in binary
> form. Huge difference.
Still hung up on that misconception. No, a license is only in effect if I sign a contract changing the sale into a limited license. They can print "By buying this hammer you agree you will ONLY drive our brand of nails and strike no other object with this tool." on the side, stock the shelves of Home Depot with them and get exact
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
You can own an idea, just not exclusively. But you can exclusively own the particular implementation of an idea.
YOU'RE confusing a sale of property with a license to use the implementation of an idea.
Your hammer example only works if I sell you a hammer, or a TV, or a car. Hammers, TVs, and cars aren't copyrighted. Software vendors aren't selling you their products...they're selling you a LICENSE to use their products. Fundamental difference.
"No, a license is only in
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
> you a LICENSE to use their products.
Nope. on the rare occasion I buy software, I BUY it. You do not need a license to use software anymore than you need one to read a book, or even to check one out of a public library.
> Then the GPL, the MPL, and every other open source license, is invalid.
> That makes WhiteBox Linux illegal.
Again, you are quite mistaken. You may download as many copies of WhiteBox from whereever you p
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
First, licenses don't mean anything, they're not binding, because you haven't signed anything.
But then you say the GPL provides a license, yet nobody has to sign anything to use GPL'd software, or copy it, or distribute it, as long as they meet its conditions. So if I don't have to sign anything, then the GPL isn't binding.
Which is it?
If the GPL can say that distributing a GPL'd work constitutes acceptance of the license, and the license is binding,
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Er, because if you distribute it, you're distributing someone else's copyrighted works. *DISTRIBUTING*. Not copying/modifying/studying for your own private use, *DISTRIBUTING*. The only way you could do that is with the copyright holder's permission, which happens to be spelled out in the GPL. That's how copyright law works, and that's the whole
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
My point is that the GPL does not require such a signed contract, only an action on the part of the licensee, to be binding. Right?
If the GPL is binding without a signed contract, by virtue of an action taken by the licensee (in this case distribution), why is another license (such as the In
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
> anything to use GPL'd software, or copy it, or distribute it, as long
> as they meet its conditions. So if I don't have to sign anything, then
> the GPL isn't binding.
Exactly correct. If you copy a GNU program and distribute it you do not have to accept the GPL. However when RMS and his squadron of elite attack lawyer ninjas descend upon you for violating their copyright, smiting thee with their rightous fury, only saying "I
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
A EULA is different because it isn't granting you dis
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
With the GPL, the "trigger," distributing the software, would be illegal if you don't agree to the GPL.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
No, wrong. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL to distribute the works, but in that case, you would be infringing the copyright of the author. Copyright is infringed when you distribute their work without their permission. That's what copyright is - a monopoly on *distribution*.
> If the GPL is binding without a signed contract, by virtue of an action taken
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
You're talking about specific laws here. The grandparent post was merely saying that violating an a
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
> immoral.
True enough but this whole matter revolves around whether an agreement exists. When people disagree on such matters, that is where the Law comes into the discussion and it is very clear on the point.
The original poster holds that as the creator and owner of a work he has absolute power to dictate the terms and conditions it can be USED under, and that by purchasing his work I MUST agree to those terms. I hold that he
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
If it's a unidirectional causality, then a moral assessment should never depend on any particular laws. The original poster claimed that unapproved decompilation was immoral. Then jmorris42 came around and started citing specific laws to prove that he had the legal right to do so.
What's wors
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
> and proceeded to draw further conclusions from that assumption
No, read up the thread, in the very first post I excluded the case of corporate site licensing and other such real signed contract sort of software licensing it should be clear I am discussing consumer EULAs.
I assert that since EULAs are wrong on both moral and legal grounds, either of which alone is cause for ignoring them. I claim that I have as much right to r
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
I made no agreement with the seller. If the seller wants an agreement, he can give me the forms to sign and I will put my John Hancock on the line if I am willing to make that agreement. Just because I clicked past some text to get the program to install doesn't mean I agreed to it.
You would give the sellers all the power. You can't return the p
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
There's some confusion here... I (and some other people) were saying that decompilation is immoral if the agreement you had doesn't allow it. You (and others) are arguing that a post-purchase EULA doesn't constitute a mut
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
The person you replied to said:
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
So signed contracts were excluded from this subbranch of the thread, at least.
jmorris42
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
True... What I *meant* to convey was that the intent of "anti-decompilation" clause might be to hide proprietary company secrets -- to protect an R&D investment. Maybe the seller doesn't really mind if you decompile to interoperate, but can't figure out a safe way to say that in the contract. In such a situation, there are ethical issues related to how much of the decompiled source code can you look at
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Especially seeing how Cadillac is a GM brand.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
I agree with you fully. Burying what you can and can't do in a EULA, one that you can't read until you take the software home and start installing it, is not what I have in mind. If they wanted to impose such conditions on the software's use, it would behoove them to have on
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Regardless of the ethics... (Score:2)
Regardless of the ethics, reading other people's code is, IMHO, the single best way to learn how coding works. And decompiling from objec