4 ms·

Though if we follow this logic to its conclusion then using and distributing a program that cracks a trial version of software doesn't shouldn't be a copyright

Though if we follow this logic to its conclusion then using and distributing a program that cracks a trial version of software doesn't shouldn't be a copyright violation. That said I would be interested if anyone could clarify to what extent a copyright license has any legal power if you're not distributing anything.

jchw 5y ago
Once again, not a lawyer, but... A crack or a keygen is in fact not illegal under traditional copyright law. That is illegal under the DMCA, at least in the U.S., as a tool meant to circumvent access control. Ignoring whether the keygen/crack itself is illegal, redistributing it with a trial version could be. Aside copyright licenses, there’s sometimes clickwrap licenses that disallow you from redistributing the trial at all. On the other hand, I believe it is unclear if a copyright license itself (as opposed to a clickwrap agreement) can actually disallow distribution based on other things it is aggregated with. This isn’t a terribly big issue for AGPL and GPL because they explicitly limit their terms to not apply: > A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
mr_toad 5y ago
> to what extent a copyright license has any legal power if you're not distributing anything. Simple: no license, no copy. It doesn’t matter how many copies you make, you still need a license. The “defence” of “I didn’t agree to the license” is basically admitting knowing and wilful infringement.
- InfiniteRand 5y ago
  I don’t think the act of copying could be illegal since backups are a thing
- contravariant 5y ago
  That seems a weird interpretation because the very act of reading the published code (including its license) is an act of copying.

jchw 5y ago

Once again, not a lawyer, but... A crack or a keygen is in fact not illegal under traditional copyright law. That is illegal under the DMCA, at least in the U.S., as a tool meant to circumvent access control. Ignoring whether the keygen/crack itself is illegal, redistributing it with a trial version could be. Aside copyright licenses, there’s sometimes clickwrap licenses that disallow you from redistributing the trial at all. On the other hand, I believe it is unclear if a copyright license itself (as opposed to a clickwrap agreement) can actually disallow distribution based on other things it is aggregated with. This isn’t a terribly big issue for AGPL and GPL because they explicitly limit their terms to not apply: > A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

mr_toad 5y ago

> to what extent a copyright license has any legal power if you're not distributing anything. Simple: no license, no copy. It doesn’t matter how many copies you make, you still need a license. The “defence” of “I didn’t agree to the license” is basically admitting knowing and wilful infringement.

InfiniteRand 5y ago
I don’t think the act of copying could be illegal since backups are a thing
contravariant 5y ago
That seems a weird interpretation because the very act of reading the published code (including its license) is an act of copying.