::: Area #157 (comp.sys.acorn.programmer)
Message: #48751 (Read 4 times, has 0 replies, 3976 bytes)
Date   : Mon Jun  5 18:22:45 2000
From   : gbuchanan@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Software copy protection - how?
Message-ID: <8hglei$8o9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>

...Oops!  Didn't express myself too clearly there - better'd clarify,

Apologies to all.

I'd like to clarify the extension/fix boundaries a bit - but they are
inherently a bit blurred - so noone can come up with a clear cut a/b
split.  However, basically a substantial change in the OS/chip
configuratation is almost certainly not permissible as a "fix", but
minor ones (and I think that the StrongARM situation would fall into
this but that's only my judgement) then you're probably in the clear.
I was under the impression that it was being argued that a patch could
mean anything at all, which clearly is not true.

I know that AppPatcher and a number of other packages perform tweaks
on software which essentially do the same fix generically to facilitate
operation of "old" software on new OS/chip configurations.  Now, this
is on one hand a technical infringement.  On the other hard, such
devices could be a separate work as their operation is not case-by-
case, and their intent is solely to permit the operation of software
on newer devices, and may be supplementary works (like, for example,
the graphics converter case I gave earlier). There is little case
law to be certain, though.

Other generic patches (e.g. there was once upon a time a popular
package on the Speccy which snapshotted the whole of memory and
permitted you to save your state in the game), however, usually fall
clearly foul of things.

OS patches are also a special case as they often rely on interrupts
etc which specifically permit filters/monitors to attach to them, so
clearly they fall into the permissible case as there's an intent to
let such agents exist.  I'd love to know what would happen if you
used an OS hook to patch a package - it'd be a real on-the-edge-of-
legal one that'd be.

A final point - if the change isn't substantial and was forseeable
by the author, then they are certainly bound to provide a fix (at
least certainly in the Germany and UK).  If they fail to do so, then
you are certainly in the clear as it is clearly a fix.  In the case
of StrongARM, Acorn certainly provided ample information of things
not to do way in advance, so any package released after that info-
rmation became available clearly should have been either compatible
or clearly labelled as incompatible.  Where changes are substantial,
or could not have been foreseen at the time of publication, then if
a compatible version is available, you must pay if you want it.
That's the law across the EU.

If no compatible version is made available, then provided that no
other features are added bar those that make the program run as
originally designed, then you are free to make a patch.  You cannot
distribute it (sadly) but (and here is a real bizarre one) you can
tell people how to do it!!!!  There are strange and lovely loopholes
all over that one ;-)

Clearly as most games (for example) are not updated to cope with
hardware etc changes you're probably safe patching for your own
purposes.  If you choose to do a patch and distribute it, you do
so at your own risk, but being pragmatic if the software is no longer
being sold, the risk is probably going to be very low, but it is
a technical infringment (at least until an amendment is made to the
corresponding law - the good news is that such an amendment is in
fact drafted - the bad news it won't be law for at least 18 months).

Is this is mess? Oh yes!  Is it sensible? Oh no!  Is it the law?
Sadly.  Don't get me started on patents mind ;-)

Keep well!

--
George Buchanan
Middlesex University


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- EchoMaker 0.50
 # Origin: Deja.com - Before you buy.
 * Origin: The Arcade BBS Usenet News Gateway (2:254/27.2)