41–50 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's satirical
It seems that you're not interested in suing anyone over this. However, you still don't give people permission to use, not even in small throwaway tests. Which is fair. But your blog post[0] language suggests that you are okay with and even incentivizes people trying this out (even if trying it out might be technically illegal, because it infringes your rights). I think you should have mentioned something about the l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GitHub gives you the right to download or fork the repo, but the license explicitly states that you can't use the code. That might mean running it on its own is technically illegal. The license literally says "you can't use this". How are so many people confused about the license in this thread?
> That might mean running it on its own is technically illegal. Based on what law/authority? Copyright law forbids making copies, derivative works, etc. Not using things. You're allowed to read a book without a license. Moreover copyright law makes an explicit exception for the copies required to run a computer program on a machine that aren't used in other ways (i.e. copying it to ram/registers): https://www.law.cor…
If you stole a copy of Microsoft Office on CD from a shop (back when that was a thing) it seems clear that using the software would have been a copyright infringement because you wouldn't have been the owner.
In this case you have the right to download the software (via the github agreement) but how does that relate to ownership and the legal exemption? I've no idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conflicting license states >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. So no use rights either.
But the granting of rights to redistribute is governed by the applicable copyright law, as far as I know there is no equivalent body of law governing usage. You can't give someone information but attach conditions to its use, except in specific circumstances. You can certainly make someone sign a contract before agreeing to give them the information, but that's not what's occurring here.
Wouldn't that effectively bar the use of DRM? If I buy a blu-ray, I can't legally watch it unless I have a player capable of unlocking the content.
That may be one of the "specific circumstances," as there is a law that specifically forbids bypassing DRM.
I love that all the discussion here is about the license I wrote and not about the actual project, which is a completely terrible idea and something I created as a lark. Why did I not spell this out in the blog post? For my own amusement. I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think, they are not computer code.
I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS) 2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court that I am aware of) 3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is) Thus no copyright infri…
So there is no grant of copyright to distribute copies of the dependency, but what about useyright? The dependant project just uses the the dependency to run a test. Supposing it didn't distribute it as part of the release, is that still allowable?
The conflicting license states >I do not give anyone permissions to use this tool for any purpose. Don't use it. So no use rights either.
Recently open sourced, but has been used for twenty years in real products from MS and others. It's not so crazy as you might think!
An example of a real use I had for it: redirecting messages from OutputDebugString to a log file. AFAIK that is the best way to do it, when you only want the output from your one process. "Why not just call a proper logging function directly instead?" Because the OutputDebugString calls were coming from inside my GPU driver. Real life is not some ivory tower of perfection. An imperfect world requires imperfect solutions.
From the explaining blog post [0] > If you’re not interested in how it works and you just want to do monkey patching, then you can find the library here. Also > Wrapping it up in a nice library > I took the above code and put it in an easy to use library. It supports 32 bit, reversing patches, and patching instance methods. I wrote a couple of examples and put those in the README. Then in the README[1]: > Make sure y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That might mean running it on its own is technically illegal. Based on what law/authority? Copyright law forbids making copies, derivative works, etc. Not using things. You're allowed to read a book without a license. Moreover copyright law makes an explicit exception for the copies required to run a computer program on a machine that aren't used in other ways (i.e. copying it to ram/registers): https://www.law.cor…
That is not a blanket exemption. It is for "the owner of a copy of a computer program". If you stole a copy of Microsoft Office on CD from a shop (back when that was a thing) it seems clear that using the software would have been a copyright infringement because you wouldn't have been the owner. In this case you have the right to download the software (via the github agreement) but how does that relate to ownership a…
I am not a lawyer... There may be an argument here that 1. GitHub has a valid license to distribute it (as a result of their TOS) 2. Running the downloaded code is not copyright infringement (or not obviously so, and hasn't been established as so in any court that I am aware of) 3. Using the APIs is not copyright infringement (see Oracle v Google, if that was fair use this almost certainly is) Thus no copyright infri…
I wonder what happens when I upload to GitHub code that I have permission to distribute, but that I don't own, that GitHub doesn't have permission to distribute and I don't have permission to give others permission to distribute.