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 l
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
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,
> 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 accept the GPL and have followed all of it's conditions" will make them stop, because otherwise that have you dead to rights on copyright infringement. See the difference? The GPL is a LICENSE to perform an action otherwise forbidden by law. You don't have to sign it, but if you want to take advantage of the additional freedoms it grants you must accept it in whole, both the THOU SHALL and the THOU SHALL NOT parts, because nothing else gives you the right to distribute a copy of a GPL licensed work.
All the GPL is, in essence the following statement. "This program is copyrighted. This means that by law you may not copy it. However, because we are good hoopy froods and want software to be Free, we grant you the right to copy and redistribute it under the following conditions. By distributing copies it is presumed that you accepted the limitations of this license since nothing else gives you permission to distribute copies so any copies made under terms and conditions not covered by this license are by definition not permitted by this license. QED."
Now take the typical EULA, it removes rights the end user already has, offers nothing of value in exchange and expects to be taken sight unseen in most cases. Where is the implied consent as in the GPL? By ignoring it I still have the right to run the program because I purchased it, I can reverse engineer it because I I bought the copy and have as much of a right to read it as my computer does.
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.
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 l
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
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: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 accept the GPL and have followed all of it's conditions" will make them stop, because otherwise that have you dead to rights on copyright infringement. See the difference? The GPL is a LICENSE to perform an action otherwise forbidden by law. You don't have to sign it, but if you want to take advantage of the additional freedoms it grants you must accept it in whole, both the THOU SHALL and the THOU SHALL NOT parts, because nothing else gives you the right to distribute a copy of a GPL licensed work.
All the GPL is, in essence the following statement. "This program is copyrighted. This means that by law you may not copy it. However, because we are good hoopy froods and want software to be Free, we grant you the right to copy and redistribute it under the following conditions. By distributing copies it is presumed that you accepted the limitations of this license since nothing else gives you permission to distribute copies so any copies made under terms and conditions not covered by this license are by definition not permitted by this license. QED."
Now take the typical EULA, it removes rights the end user already has, offers nothing of value in exchange and expects to be taken sight unseen in most cases. Where is the implied consent as in the GPL? By ignoring it I still have the right to run the program because I purchased it, I can reverse engineer it because I I bought the copy and have as much of a right to read it as my computer does.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)