5 ms·

If there is no license you have no rights to the software. If they are offering it for download there is probably an implied license to use the software but cer

If there is no license you have no rights to the software. If they are offering it for download there is probably an implied license to use the software but certainly not to modify or distribute it.

Scarblac 8y ago
As far as I understand, the FSF's stance has always been that copyright law does not cover use of a piece of software you have in your possession, and they have done a lot of thinking on the subject. You can use the copy you downloaded, no license needed. Modification, distribution, making it part of another larger work -- you need a license for those.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  You can’t run the program without making a copy into memory. That is the theory upon which running software without a license is a copyright violation.
- wahern 8y ago
  The FSF certainly has well considered opinions, but their opinions are in many respects outside the mainstream. People, even lawyers, often use reductio ad absurdum to argue that some behavior isn't infringing. In a famous draft opinion in the Sony v. Betamax Justice Stevens wrote, It would plainly be unconstitutional to prohibit a person from singing a copyrighted song in the shower or jotting down a copyrighted poem he hears on the radio. All the other justices disagreed with Stevens on the second point--it's elementary law that to jot down a poem you hear on the radio is infringement of the reproduction copyright.[1] This sounds absurd (and, well, it is!) but copyrights and patents are a little absurd to begin with. Usually the absurdity of the scope of copyright law is tolerable because of the impossibility of a plaintiff discovering or proving infringement in personal, private use. Other times courts may use Fair Use or other technicalities to avoid absurd outcomes. But many times the absurdity lies and people are penalized. In any event, courts aren't disposed to finding non-infringement. Modern courts have narrowed considerably traditional theories like merger and the idea/expression dichotomy that circumscribed the scope of copyright outright. And it's non partisan. If Ginsburg had her way copyright would see a considerable expansion in scope. (Her daughter is the author of an influential treatise on copyright, which propounds a radically expansive view of copyrights.) [1] I forgot where I read the historical account about all the other justices disagreeing on that specific point. I think it was in one of my treatises.
JdeBP 8y ago
This is not, in fact, true. * http://jdebp.info./FGA/law-licence-free-softwares.html http://jdebp.info./FGA/law-licence-free-softwares.html
- rusk 8y ago
  Tangentially. Noticed that the domain name ends in a '.' - is this intentionally or a typo? Works fine with or without. Does DNS simply ignore a trailing '.'? Just checking here with "google.com." and indeed it does! Google will rewrite the URL to omit the trailing '.' but other sites apparently do not. "irishtimes.com." for example.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    There's an FGA for that, too. (-: * http://jdebp.info./FGA/web-fully-qualified-domain-name.html http://jdebp.info./FGA/web-fully-qualified-domain-name.html
    - rusk 8y ago
      (-: Thank you! Also tangentially, do you do your smiley backwards (like I do) so that Outlook doesn't rewrite them on you?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- slededit 8y ago
  Yea you can modify it locally. But in this context I meant redistributing your modified version a la free software. It's not much fun to play with something and then not show anyone.
jacobush 8y ago
Modify, yes. Distribute, no.

If there is no license you have no rights to the software. If they are offering it for download there is probably an implied license to use the software but certainly not to modify or distribute it.

Scarblac 8y ago

As far as I understand, the FSF's stance has always been that copyright law does not cover use of a piece of software you have in your possession, and they have done a lot of thinking on the subject. You can use the copy you downloaded, no license needed. Modification, distribution, making it part of another larger work -- you need a license for those.

tinus_hn 8y ago
You can’t run the program without making a copy into memory. That is the theory upon which running software without a license is a copyright violation.
wahern 8y ago
The FSF certainly has well considered opinions, but their opinions are in many respects outside the mainstream. People, even lawyers, often use reductio ad absurdum to argue that some behavior isn't infringing. In a famous draft opinion in the Sony v. Betamax Justice Stevens wrote, It would plainly be unconstitutional to prohibit a person from singing a copyrighted song in the shower or jotting down a copyrighted poem he hears on the radio. All the other justices disagreed with Stevens on the second point--it's elementary law that to jot down a poem you hear on the radio is infringement of the reproduction copyright.[1] This sounds absurd (and, well, it is!) but copyrights and patents are a little absurd to begin with. Usually the absurdity of the scope of copyright law is tolerable because of the impossibility of a plaintiff discovering or proving infringement in personal, private use. Other times courts may use Fair Use or other technicalities to avoid absurd outcomes. But many times the absurdity lies and people are penalized. In any event, courts aren't disposed to finding non-infringement. Modern courts have narrowed considerably traditional theories like merger and the idea/expression dichotomy that circumscribed the scope of copyright outright. And it's non partisan. If Ginsburg had her way copyright would see a considerable expansion in scope. (Her daughter is the author of an influential treatise on copyright, which propounds a radically expansive view of copyrights.) [1] I forgot where I read the historical account about all the other justices disagreeing on that specific point. I think it was in one of my treatises.

JdeBP 8y ago

This is not, in fact, true. * http://jdebp.info./FGA/law-licence-free-softwares.html http://jdebp.info./FGA/law-licence-free-softwares.html

rusk 8y ago
Tangentially. Noticed that the domain name ends in a '.' - is this intentionally or a typo? Works fine with or without. Does DNS simply ignore a trailing '.'? Just checking here with "google.com." and indeed it does! Google will rewrite the URL to omit the trailing '.' but other sites apparently do not. "irishtimes.com." for example.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  There's an FGA for that, too. (-: * http://jdebp.info./FGA/web-fully-qualified-domain-name.html http://jdebp.info./FGA/web-fully-qualified-domain-name.html
  - rusk 8y ago
    (-: Thank you! Also tangentially, do you do your smiley backwards (like I do) so that Outlook doesn't rewrite them on you?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
slededit 8y ago
Yea you can modify it locally. But in this context I meant redistributing your modified version a la free software. It's not much fun to play with something and then not show anyone.

jacobush 8y ago

Modify, yes. Distribute, no.