Author: Eye Witness
Date: 21:24:20 09/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. This isn't clear to me at all. There is an interoperability >incompatibility between the King chess engine of ChessMaster and the GUI of >Fritz that is solved by applying the patch. I don't see an ethics problem here. > There may or may not be a legal problem, but that would depend on where the >user of the patch lives. > >I guess it could be that this is a case of "questionable legality". Frankly, >I'm surprised that some people think it might be illegal for a lawful owner of >the software to apply this patch to their program. > >I am not a lawyer, and this message is not legal advice. > >Dave HAHAHA Dave you are cracking me up with that line "I am not a lawyer, and this message is not legal advice." HAHAHA , i think, i'm going to find some of those do not remove under penalty of law tags you find on old matresses.
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.