🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4186@cbmvax.UUCP>, andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
> In article <4640@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes:
> >-- a reasonable extrapolation is that it would also be legal to sell a copy of
> >the disassembly to someone who wanted to use the disassembled software -- though
> >I'm not sure about how reasonable a bunch of lawyers would be!  [I am refering
> 
> How different is this from someone making a copy of a commercial program,
> then selling the copy ?
> 
> -- 
> andy finkel		{uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy
> Commodore-Amiga, Inc.
> 

Actually, I am not really sure it is any different at all.  Is it any different
from someone writing a "new" program and selling copies of it -- since any
salable program has to be a lot like other, previously sold, programs or no
one will have any idea what it is for.  The whole point of copyright is to
give away as much of the store as possible, and still keep the storekeeper
from starting a revolution (I don't know who said that, but it is pretty
accurate!).  And if anyone thinks the whole copyright schtick makes any sense
at all, compare the recent rulings in Canada and Louisiana.  I believe no
rational individual can agree with both!

Charles Marslett
chasm@killer.UUCP

P.S.  It is a lot of fun to watch though!
> "Un*x is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very
> carefully.
> 				
> Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
> I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.