4 ms·

Without the Right to Modify, it is very difficult to guarantee any of the other rights I've listed. Most of the rights I list have provisions explicitly outlini

Without the Right to Modify, it is very difficult to guarantee any of the other rights I've listed. Most of the rights I list have provisions explicitly outlining that users have the right to circumvent DRM, captchas, and other technological locks that prevent them from exercising their rights. Without the Right to Modify, anyone could restrict any of the other rights on this page just by flipping a few bits in software and calling it DRM. Imagine if a website operator could sue Gorhill because Ublock Origin circumvented anti-adblocking measures in clientside code.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
The problem is realistically, DRM exists to prevent unlawful access and use. Your "right" narrowly avoids the topic by claiming users only should have the right to circumvent that which prohibits access they're legally entitled to. However, imagine a term of service that only grants access to a website in exchange for viewing ads. (This is the implicit contract of ad-based web viewing from the beginning, but websites aside from some streaming video platforms have not really "enforced" the fact that users pay for content by viewing ads.)
- belorn 7y ago
  > imagine a term of service that only grants access to a website in exchange for viewing ads Lets first imagine that the term of service is fully understood by the users. The tracking is explained and understood, the trading of personal data, the auction of targeting advertisement to anyone, the lack of liability in case of malware. In that world it make sense that websites enforce the trade of access in return for all the above. Until then we have the wild wild west that is online advertisement without regulation, liability or contract between the user and the publisher.
marcus_holmes 7y ago
so your manifesto effectively says that any software licence that isn't GPL/WTF should be illegal? Software licencing isn't DRM in my world... how are you equating them?
- danShumway 7y ago
  No, my manifesto says that a clause in a EULA that prevents an end-user from reverse-engineering or modifying a binary that is placed on their own computer for their own personal use should be unenforceable via legal means. I'm not really talking about source code, let alone the GPL. You can still ship proprietary software, but you shouldn't be able to sue users for using it, examining it, or modifying it -- any more than you should be able to sue them for taking apart or modding a microwave oven or a ladder.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    So I have the right to reverse-engineer the shipped binary, but no right to examine the source code? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It would save everyone a lot of effort if you just stipulated that all binaries must come with source (though, of course, that would still require the recipient to verify that the source matches the binary). I agree with the microwave oven/ladder argument - we should be able to modify those, that makes sense. I think the problem here is commercial re-use. If I make a modification to your source code, that I got from reverse-engineering a binary I purchased from you, should I be able to sell it? After all, if I modify a ladder and resell it, I have to buy each unmodified ladder from the original manufacturer, so there's no problem. But I only need to buy one copy of code and I can resell it many times. Should I have to buy one copy from the original creator for every copy of the modified code I sell?
    - danShumway 7y ago
      I separate copyright from the rights of an owner over an individual copy. Think of it like a physical book. If I buy a physical book, I have the right to rip pages out of it, or rebind it with a new cover, or even scan it as a personal backup. I also have the right to resale, so if I buy a book I can sell it to someone else, even if I've modified it (although I would need to destroy all of my own backups). What I can't do is scan the book and start selling copies of it. That's covered by copyright. In the same way, allowing someone to reverse-engineer and modify Photoshop, or even to share instructions on how to modify Photoshop, does not mean that they can turn around and start hosting copies of Photoshop downloads on their own servers and distributing them for free or for money. Existing laws in the US cover this fairly well -- the problems I have are with EULAs that try to ban owner rights to modify their own software, and with the DMCA which makes it illegal to break DRM or tell people how to break it even if you're breaking it for a completely legal reason. I don't want to get rid of copyright, but if you sell me an Kindle Ebook, and I break the DRM on that book to get it to load on my own Kobo reader, that should be legal. I don't believe an author has the moral authority to block something like that. It's not an obligation to distribute the source, or to allow anyone to do literally anything they want -- just to say that if content/code is executing on my device, I should be able to look at it and manipulate it. Once it leaves my device and re-enters the public sphere, feel free to start enforcing terms.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

The problem is realistically, DRM exists to prevent unlawful access and use. Your "right" narrowly avoids the topic by claiming users only should have the right to circumvent that which prohibits access they're legally entitled to. However, imagine a term of service that only grants access to a website in exchange for viewing ads. (This is the implicit contract of ad-based web viewing from the beginning, but websites aside from some streaming video platforms have not really "enforced" the fact that users pay for content by viewing ads.)

belorn 7y ago
> imagine a term of service that only grants access to a website in exchange for viewing ads Lets first imagine that the term of service is fully understood by the users. The tracking is explained and understood, the trading of personal data, the auction of targeting advertisement to anyone, the lack of liability in case of malware. In that world it make sense that websites enforce the trade of access in return for all the above. Until then we have the wild wild west that is online advertisement without regulation, liability or contract between the user and the publisher.

marcus_holmes 7y ago

so your manifesto effectively says that any software licence that isn't GPL/WTF should be illegal? Software licencing isn't DRM in my world... how are you equating them?

danShumway 7y ago
No, my manifesto says that a clause in a EULA that prevents an end-user from reverse-engineering or modifying a binary that is placed on their own computer for their own personal use should be unenforceable via legal means. I'm not really talking about source code, let alone the GPL. You can still ship proprietary software, but you shouldn't be able to sue users for using it, examining it, or modifying it -- any more than you should be able to sue them for taking apart or modding a microwave oven or a ladder.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  So I have the right to reverse-engineer the shipped binary, but no right to examine the source code? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It would save everyone a lot of effort if you just stipulated that all binaries must come with source (though, of course, that would still require the recipient to verify that the source matches the binary). I agree with the microwave oven/ladder argument - we should be able to modify those, that makes sense. I think the problem here is commercial re-use. If I make a modification to your source code, that I got from reverse-engineering a binary I purchased from you, should I be able to sell it? After all, if I modify a ladder and resell it, I have to buy each unmodified ladder from the original manufacturer, so there's no problem. But I only need to buy one copy of code and I can resell it many times. Should I have to buy one copy from the original creator for every copy of the modified code I sell?
  - danShumway 7y ago
    I separate copyright from the rights of an owner over an individual copy. Think of it like a physical book. If I buy a physical book, I have the right to rip pages out of it, or rebind it with a new cover, or even scan it as a personal backup. I also have the right to resale, so if I buy a book I can sell it to someone else, even if I've modified it (although I would need to destroy all of my own backups). What I can't do is scan the book and start selling copies of it. That's covered by copyright. In the same way, allowing someone to reverse-engineer and modify Photoshop, or even to share instructions on how to modify Photoshop, does not mean that they can turn around and start hosting copies of Photoshop downloads on their own servers and distributing them for free or for money. Existing laws in the US cover this fairly well -- the problems I have are with EULAs that try to ban owner rights to modify their own software, and with the DMCA which makes it illegal to break DRM or tell people how to break it even if you're breaking it for a completely legal reason. I don't want to get rid of copyright, but if you sell me an Kindle Ebook, and I break the DRM on that book to get it to load on my own Kobo reader, that should be legal. I don't believe an author has the moral authority to block something like that. It's not an obligation to distribute the source, or to allow anyone to do literally anything they want -- just to say that if content/code is executing on my device, I should be able to look at it and manipulate it. Once it leaves my device and re-enters the public sphere, feel free to start enforcing terms.