::: Area #157 (comp.sys.acorn.programmer)
Message: #48735 (Read 4 times, has 0 replies, 5924 bytes)
Date   : Mon Jun  5 18:22:42 2000
From   : grb@dalriad.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Software copy protection - how?
Message-ID: <ant0423190b0bqi9@dalriad.demon.co.uk>

In article <2ca23c949%Vulch@kerrier.vulch.org>, Anthony Frost
<URL:mailto:Vulch@kernow.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <d8aaf8c849.Jo@village.uunet.be>
>           John Tytgat <John.Tytgat@aaug.net> wrote:
>
>  > In message <ant0314450b0bqi9@dalriad.demon.co.uk>
>  >           George Buchanan <grb@dalriad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  >
>  > > 3) People don't have the right to hack software (patches
>  > >    etc), and it is both illegal and unethical to do so,
>  > > [...]
>  >
>  > Not true.  Under European law you may disassemble and change
>  > any program in order to get it working on your machine.  I don't
>  > think other exceptions are allowed.
>
> Analysing data interchange is also permitted, file formats, comms
> protocols, anything you need to let other software work with it.
>
...actually, there are limits on both the exceptions described
above.  One can do patches for ones own use, but not for a third
party (e.g. if I patched Impression on my machine, I can't give
you the patch).  This comes down to copyright law under international
agreement, so EU law is in this case secondary to international,
i.e. beyond-EU, agreements.

Also, any act of the above which extends a product in such a way
as to break any specific clauses in the licence is also forbidden.
The problem is that everyone's latching on to a judgement which has
in fact been superseded, in part by the action of the EU council of
ministers after the last round G7 and WTO talks, in part by a
successful case brought by IBM (I seem to remember - I have a
feeling that CSA were involved somewhere - so that may be incorrect)
in Belgium last year.

So, sorry folks, including Matthias, it ain't as simple as that,
your information was correct (for about 15 months), but is now
out of date.

The above would cover Germany, UK, France etc. - anywhere in the
EU.

There is a right of reassignment, as I stated before, and there
is a very strictly limited patching right (for ones own use only
plus a number of restrictions on embedding the original in a
larger work, or using part as a component of a another work
even if it is for ones own use).  Most patches in fact break at
least one of these clauses.  Particularly, if the publisher makes
available, for instance, a "fix" to make a package work on newer
software, then you really would be on the very edge of legality
if you did patch it (I'd reckon that in reality minor patches
which I think are being discussed here would be okay, major ones
would be pretty certain to fall foul of being extensions of
utility [read - oh-oh] rather than enablers of intended utility
[read aok].

The law is much messier than it was 2 years back, and until the
next round of EU tidying of copyright (put in abeyance until the
terrifying possibility of software patents is dealt with) it will
remain so.  The legalities would seem pretty certain to indicate
a consolidation around the above.

If you added a patch to enable a software product to work beyond
its original specification as sold, eg on a new version of an
operating system, which was not originally specified and could
not be reasonably assumed, then it is almost certainly illegal,
including in Germany.  If taken to court, you would have to
prove that the patch did not in fact construct a greater work
than the original (i.e. it is not an extension), or that
alternatively any "extension" could be fairly and reasonably
interpreted as a separate work (file conversion usually gets
clear of problems at this point) and within the scope of
reasonable expectation of the original product.

A classic "squeaky clean" case would therefore be, product
"SuperDraw" has a bust output of (say) PS graphics, a patch
which fixes this fault as the facility was intended and thus
facilitates designed function.  Equally, a graphics converter
package would be independent (so reverse engineering aok), but
NB that if you patched it *into* the package it would *not*
but okay.

Nasty bits "gotchas" include reverse engineering a file
format and then being "inspired" in any way by it - so if
you see somat clever in a file format, erase that part of
your brain as you could be deemed to have transgressed copy-
right.  (It should be okay in my view, but the result of
cases in court proves otherwise :-( ).  Also, you can't
give your patch to anyone else.

Copyright works are not the same as (say) cars in that
extension is expressly forbidden by international treaty.
However, certain things are similar.  If your car didn't
work on unleaded, the manufacturer is entitled to charge for
an "upgrade".  Even if you do your own adaptation, if will
cost you (even if it be only time).

However, do remember that doing something under which you
could be sued is not the same as being sued.  Most organis-
ations have a reasonably tolerant attitude to individual
cases - it's just if they're losing reasonable money they
get tetchy.

For what it's worth, serialisation works quite well as a
tracker.  I know of a couple of cases involving software
houses in the RiscOS market which successfully relied upon
it in court, and of many more where people were caught but
it didn't go down to the wire so-to-speak.  We use it for
admin purposes and it actually works a lot better than
version numbers (though we use both people usually
remember their serial no, and from our records we can
double-check which version they are on).

--

George Buchanan, Dalriada Data Technology
74 Greville Road, Warwick, CV34 5PJ
Phone/Fax: [+44] (0)1926 492459

--- EchoMaker 0.50
 # Origin: Organisation name, location. Telephone/Fax?
 * Origin: The Arcade BBS Usenet News Gateway (2:254/27.2)