7 ms·

This sounds incredible, does it allow for redistribution of the fixed product? Or is it just for the purposes of notifying the creator of the problem and its so

This sounds incredible, does it allow for redistribution of the fixed product? Or is it just for the purposes of notifying the creator of the problem and its solution in one go?

mrtksn 5y ago
You probably can buy, fix and re-sell software. I recall about some EU court ruling that made it clear that you can definitely sell the software you bought.
- gambiting 5y ago
  It's been ruled this way over and over and over again - you can definitely resell OEM software no matter what the licence says, it's your right as a consumer in the EU. My company bought a 50-user MSSQL 2019 licence for cheap(like €1000) because a company was going into bankruptcy and software was being sold off separately to all hardware.
moreira 5y ago
I can't tell, but it'd never be allowed. Grab an AAA game, fix a bug in it, and now you're free to redistribute the game without consequences. That'd be insane.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  Yeah a patch should be fine though
- brezelgoring 5y ago
  My idea wasn't to redistribute the whole thing, but to distribute a patch that other owners of the game can use by themselves? Now that's a win. I also love the idea of adding newer OS compatibility to old software, seeing old video games running on Windows 10 would be thrilling. Perhaps do the same for drivers of old hardware? Also a win, IMO. Another big question, in these patches, can I do only the fixes I can justify? Or can I go wild and remove the parts I don't like? I'd love to remove telemetry from my TV and all those weird apps it comes with that are in Chinese and are unusable outside China.
Jensson 5y ago
Seems like you can distribute it. But you can't create a competing product based on it. See point b here, that should let you send patches. > 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application: > (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program; > (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; > (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright. Edit: The point of the ruling was that this clause can be interpreted to work for fixing bugs and not just interoperate with other programs. So everything here goes for fixing bugs as well.
pja 5y ago
I doubt you can redistribute the fixed product, that would definitely be a copyright infringement. But I don’t see why you couldn’t distribute a patch file, which people could apply to their own (legitimately acquired) copy of the original binary.
- FastEatSlow 5y ago
  Is there any difference legally between the user applying the patch file themselves and them being provided a script to automatically patch it for them?
  - AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
    Well, so far it's how Fan Translations of videogames have largely avoided legal scrutiny: they distribute the translation as a ROM patch, but it's up to the end-user to track down the actual ROM / game dump.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      That seems shady from a legal perspective - unlike a patch, a translation is obviously a derived work (being one of the explicitly listed examples in law of what is defined as a derived work), and you need permission from the author to distribute or even make a translation.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        It's probably not legal but it's in the "no one really cares territory" since to actually enjoy the translation, you need to either buy a copy of the game or pirate it. In the former case, great, a sale made to a person that would've never otherwise bought the game and in the latter it makes no real difference since you were never marketing to that person anyways. The English release of Steins;Gate is actually an edited version of the fan translation, so the property owners couldn't have been that upset with the fan translators.
  - chillfox 5y ago
MayeulC 5y ago
It looks like you can fix it yourself, or ask someone, as long as you have a legal copy. I think (IANAL) redistributing is okay as log as it requires a lawfully acquired copy of the program. I wonder if that would help the open source GTA remake case. They can argue it now runs on ARM for instance, which would be okay given the text.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >I wonder if that would help the open source GTA remake case. Doubt it because they were distributing the entire decompiled codebase. The part that was missing was just the game assets. If they were just distributing a binary patch that fixed the game, then they would probably be safe.
orra 5y ago
> does it allow for redistribution of the fixed product? Nah, that would almost certainly infringe upon the exclusive [power] of the copyright holder to distribute the original product. But I presume this may allow you to redistribute a minimal binary patch, or allow you to describe how to make the modifications manually.
aleclm 5y ago
AFAIU the second part of the ruling states that you don't need to warn/get permission by the author. Basically, you can fix it for your own consumption. Surely you can't redistribute copyrighted material.
- dathinab 5y ago
  Yes, through you might(?) distribute a tool to help people "fix" their thing themself. Like bundling a open source decompiler, recompiler, code to work around decompilation restrictions and a patch into a single binary you can then use to fix the actual binary.
  - aleclm 5y ago
    Usually, to patch a program, a binary patch is enough. Decompiling and recompiling is hard (even that's what we do at rev.ng!) :)
est31 5y ago
No, this doesn't neccessarily imply that. The copyright owner possesses multiple rights and some of those rights only apply to distribution of altered works while still allowing alterations. E.g. you buy a house from an architect. Can the architect sue you if you add another door? When you buy some media from the copyright owner, you can distribute it freely. This is called first sale doctrine in the USA, and is also present in certain forms in EU copyright law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine The first sale doctrine is not present for digital goods though, at least in the USA. In the EU, there has been a court case in 2012 UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp which established something like that for digital goods too. But I'm not an expert on this.
- sumedh 5y ago
  > you buy a house from an architect. Can the architect sue you if you add another door? You are the owner of the house not the architect why would the architect sue you?
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Well, here in UK it's common when buying a house from a developer that the house comes with a covenant of some kind that stipulates that you can't make modifications to the front of the house without obtaining permission from the developer first. Yes, even though the house is entirely yours. The given reason being that they don't want you making the house "ugly" and ruining their reputation as a house builder.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      That is such bullshit. It is not their house! Does it actually ruin their reputation? Or would it if people knew people could do anything to their own damn house? Still, I find not being able to do such things to my house without their permission silly. What is the most minor modification that is disallowed?
      - 5y ago
zeeZ 5y ago
From skimming it, a legal purchaser can decompile it only to the extent necessary to fix errors affecting operation, and copyright remains with the original rights holder. It's very limited.

This sounds incredible, does it allow for redistribution of the fixed product? Or is it just for the purposes of notifying the creator of the problem and its solution in one go?

mrtksn 5y ago

You probably can buy, fix and re-sell software. I recall about some EU court ruling that made it clear that you can definitely sell the software you bought.

gambiting 5y ago
It's been ruled this way over and over and over again - you can definitely resell OEM software no matter what the licence says, it's your right as a consumer in the EU. My company bought a 50-user MSSQL 2019 licence for cheap(like €1000) because a company was going into bankruptcy and software was being sold off separately to all hardware.

moreira 5y ago

I can't tell, but it'd never be allowed. Grab an AAA game, fix a bug in it, and now you're free to redistribute the game without consequences. That'd be insane.

roflc0ptic 5y ago
Yeah a patch should be fine though
brezelgoring 5y ago
My idea wasn't to redistribute the whole thing, but to distribute a patch that other owners of the game can use by themselves? Now that's a win. I also love the idea of adding newer OS compatibility to old software, seeing old video games running on Windows 10 would be thrilling. Perhaps do the same for drivers of old hardware? Also a win, IMO. Another big question, in these patches, can I do only the fixes I can justify? Or can I go wild and remove the parts I don't like? I'd love to remove telemetry from my TV and all those weird apps it comes with that are in Chinese and are unusable outside China.

Jensson 5y ago

Seems like you can distribute it. But you can't create a competing product based on it. See point b here, that should let you send patches. > 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application: > (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program; > (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; > (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright. Edit: The point of the ruling was that this clause can be interpreted to work for fixing bugs and not just interoperate with other programs. So everything here goes for fixing bugs as well.

pja 5y ago

I doubt you can redistribute the fixed product, that would definitely be a copyright infringement. But I don’t see why you couldn’t distribute a patch file, which people could apply to their own (legitimately acquired) copy of the original binary.

FastEatSlow 5y ago
Is there any difference legally between the user applying the patch file themselves and them being provided a script to automatically patch it for them?
- AdmiralAsshat 5y ago
  Well, so far it's how Fan Translations of videogames have largely avoided legal scrutiny: they distribute the translation as a ROM patch, but it's up to the end-user to track down the actual ROM / game dump.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    That seems shady from a legal perspective - unlike a patch, a translation is obviously a derived work (being one of the explicitly listed examples in law of what is defined as a derived work), and you need permission from the author to distribute or even make a translation.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      It's probably not legal but it's in the "no one really cares territory" since to actually enjoy the translation, you need to either buy a copy of the game or pirate it. In the former case, great, a sale made to a person that would've never otherwise bought the game and in the latter it makes no real difference since you were never marketing to that person anyways. The English release of Steins;Gate is actually an edited version of the fan translation, so the property owners couldn't have been that upset with the fan translators.
- chillfox 5y ago

MayeulC 5y ago

It looks like you can fix it yourself, or ask someone, as long as you have a legal copy. I think (IANAL) redistributing is okay as log as it requires a lawfully acquired copy of the program. I wonder if that would help the open source GTA remake case. They can argue it now runs on ARM for instance, which would be okay given the text.

Hamuko 5y ago
>I wonder if that would help the open source GTA remake case. Doubt it because they were distributing the entire decompiled codebase. The part that was missing was just the game assets. If they were just distributing a binary patch that fixed the game, then they would probably be safe.

orra 5y ago

> does it allow for redistribution of the fixed product? Nah, that would almost certainly infringe upon the exclusive [power] of the copyright holder to distribute the original product. But I presume this may allow you to redistribute a minimal binary patch, or allow you to describe how to make the modifications manually.

aleclm 5y ago

AFAIU the second part of the ruling states that you don't need to warn/get permission by the author. Basically, you can fix it for your own consumption. Surely you can't redistribute copyrighted material.

dathinab 5y ago
Yes, through you might(?) distribute a tool to help people "fix" their thing themself. Like bundling a open source decompiler, recompiler, code to work around decompilation restrictions and a patch into a single binary you can then use to fix the actual binary.
- aleclm 5y ago
  Usually, to patch a program, a binary patch is enough. Decompiling and recompiling is hard (even that's what we do at rev.ng!) :)

est31 5y ago

No, this doesn't neccessarily imply that. The copyright owner possesses multiple rights and some of those rights only apply to distribution of altered works while still allowing alterations. E.g. you buy a house from an architect. Can the architect sue you if you add another door? When you buy some media from the copyright owner, you can distribute it freely. This is called first sale doctrine in the USA, and is also present in certain forms in EU copyright law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine The first sale doctrine is not present for digital goods though, at least in the USA. In the EU, there has been a court case in 2012 UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp which established something like that for digital goods too. But I'm not an expert on this.

sumedh 5y ago
> you buy a house from an architect. Can the architect sue you if you add another door? You are the owner of the house not the architect why would the architect sue you?
- gambiting 5y ago
  Well, here in UK it's common when buying a house from a developer that the house comes with a covenant of some kind that stipulates that you can't make modifications to the front of the house without obtaining permission from the developer first. Yes, even though the house is entirely yours. The given reason being that they don't want you making the house "ugly" and ruining their reputation as a house builder.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    That is such bullshit. It is not their house! Does it actually ruin their reputation? Or would it if people knew people could do anything to their own damn house? Still, I find not being able to do such things to my house without their permission silly. What is the most minor modification that is disallowed?
    - 5y ago

zeeZ 5y ago

From skimming it, a legal purchaser can decompile it only to the extent necessary to fix errors affecting operation, and copyright remains with the original rights holder. It's very limited.