[NTLUG:Discuss] MI2 boycott

[Kevin Brannen]

Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> 
> And the point I was trying to get intelligent people to remember is that
> the law doesn't (at this point) consider such algorithims binding*.  That
> is, when someone sells me something, they lose their claim to it, and they
> lose their claim to any locks/etc. on it.  They might not like this, and
> they may try to claim they still own it, but the law doesn't recognize that
> claim.  It doesn't matter if they sell me a car with the hood welded shut,
> I have a right to cut it open and look inside.

I will point out that you need to be very careful here.  If you read
that "license" that comes with almost any piece of commercial
software, you'll find all kinds of restrictions, like only being able
to install it on *1* machine.  How can they claim that?  Because the
license is not based on "consumer law" (there may be another name for
this) like buying a hammer or a lawn mower, but on "contract law". 
Contract law allows the selling company to put extra restrictions on
their product, like only 1 copy for backups, you can't give any copies
away, you can't install on more than 1 machine (per license), etc.

> I specifically referred to the right to do what I want to it *as long as
> I'm the one using it*.  You have no inherent right to redistribute a copy
> of a copyrighted work.  But you have every right to copy it for yourself,
> change the format, plaster your walls with the pages, color them in, etc.
> And you have every right to reverse engineer software you buy and change
> it.  You can't redistribute that unless the author licenses it that way,
> but in your home, you can do what you want.  Right now, anyway.

You can not "in your home, [you can] do what you want" -- and follow
the law the license was written under.  Now for reality, I suspect
most people follow your line of reasoning, maybe even me (though I
won't say, :-) but that is not in the licenses.

My copy of MS-Project (the first license I could quickly find) also
says "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
HANDLER, except to the extent the foregoing restriction is expressly
prohibited by applicable law."  Whether there are any existing laws
that prohibit that restriction, I wouldn't know.

Please note, I'm discussing the law, not whether I think it's right or
wrong.  My opinion there seems to change based on how I feel at the
moment as I can see both sides of the argument.  My point is, there
are different "kinds of law", and they work differently (whether we
like it or not).

Kevin