Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 17:12:35 09/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2003 at 20:07:38, Robin Smith wrote: >On September 08, 2003 at 19:08:04, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On September 08, 2003 at 18:51:45, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >>>On September 08, 2003 at 13:41:49, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On September 07, 2003 at 18:08:14, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>>My definition is quite simple. If the software violates the licenisng >>>>>agreement, it is illegal. I have read the UBI Soft licensing agreement and like >>>>>most agreements, distrubuting licensed modified code to others (registered or >>>>>not registered ) users is prohibited. That is exactly what deadking is, it is a >>>>>distributution of modified code that was governed by the licensing agreement >>>>>which explicitly forbade that. >>>>> >>>>>But perhaps, I am wrong -- so I will pose the question to the author of the "The >>>>>King" and one of our esteemed members of CCC, Johan de Koning, about the >>>>>legality of "deadking". >>>>> >>>>>Johan - are your views of the legality of the "deadking" - modified "the king" >>>>>engine code that allows the user to use the "The King" engine in the Fritz >>>>>enviroment without ever requiring the OPK code? >>>>> >>>>>Best, >>>>> >>>>>Michael >>>> >>>>I'm not entirely up to speed on the issue being discussed here, but just some >>>>food for thought: The issue of distributing modified licensed code really isn't >>>>important, because it can be gotten around. Someone can just as easily make a >>>>program from scratch that will "patch" Chessmaster (or any other program), and >>>>there should be nothing illegal about distributing the patching program. Yes, it >>>>is a small technicality, and the intent is still the same, but there is nothing >>>>illegal about a program written completely from scratch that modifies a memory >>>>location or modifies a file. If the author is careful to make the user select >>>>which file to change, then there is nothing illegal about the program or it's >>>>distrobution. >>>> >>>>Basically the point is that the creator of such >>>>cheats/hacks/"fixes"/patches/etc. can create them legally and put the burden of >>>>illegal actions onto the user (who obviously doesn't care about legallity in the >>>>first place). >>> >>>You raised an interesting point. The illegal action transfers to the user who >>>applies the patch, who obviously does not care. In the spirit of our charter, >>>it does not change things one iota - it is still an activity of questionable >>>legality and it will still be a forbidden topic on CCC best pursued under >>>r.g.c.c where there is no such charter. >> >>I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that applying the patch is >>illegal. >>Dave > >Dave you are correct. It isn't illegal, in spite of what the license agreement >says. No license agreement can legally limit reasonable use of a product, in >spite of what the license agreement's wording may say. If I buy a printer, and >the printer manufacturer has a license agreement inside the box that states I >can only use original manufacturer printer cartridges, it will not stand up in >court. Neither would the UBI soft agreement. I see you must be a lawyer or judge. The truth , we never know for sure what the court is going to find in any a case. In fact, that is why people go to court - because they all believe they are "right" and the other guy is "wrong". Isn't that true?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.