🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12752@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (nghiem) writes:
>Nonsense! The bulletin board networks (FIDO, OPUS, and others)
>are full of documents that publish deprotection schemes and other patches. 

	Just because other people do it, doesn't mean it's right.

>In fact, a piece of the software I bought contained such
>a patch document that was posted to Compuserve.

	If the patch was added by the manufacturer, that's one thing;
	if it was added by someone else (say, the store), and then
	sold or distributed to you, it's illegal.

>If you buy a piece of software, you can do what you want with it, even
>modify it if you have the knowledge. You will get in trouble if
>you DISTRIBUTE it in violation of copyright and licensing agreements because
>the source is not yours.

	Quite true, but you don't address the real question.  The
	fact of the matter is this; if the posting of that information
	causes 10000 extra sales, and _one_ act of piracy, the author
	is in trouble.  What he, and the people on FIDO, etc, depend
	on is the fact that it isn't economical to sue them, and that
	a jury would have a hard time understanding the issues.

	BTW, a good lawyer could argue that the software changes were
	``distributed'' by being published.

-- 
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP
"The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep."
     -- Woody Allen.