[License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses

[John Cowan]

Johnny A. Solbu scripsit:

> Then you are mistaken. The copy was licenced, not sold. If you did
> buy it, then it would become your property, and no longer Redhat's
> property.

That copy was my property and not Red Hat's.  They were of course free
to make other copies, as was I.  Similarly, when I download a copy of
some open-source software, that copy belongs to me, and I can do what I
like with it.  That doesn't mean I own the copy*right*, just the copy.

> You would own it and could deny Redhat their use of it. I.e. If i
> bougth your car, I could deny you your use of the car, but if I
> licenced it, it would still be your car, but I got usage rights to it.

Just so.  My car is mine, and my copy of RHL is mine.  But my copy
of Windows is *not* mine, given the terms of the proprietary license.
In principle Microsoft could revoke the license at any time, and I'd have
to destroy the copy.  If I sell you the computer, the Windows license
does *not* go with it, nor do I retain it -- it evaporates.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
How they ever reached any conclusion at all is starkly unknowable
to the human mind.        --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett