Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @03:10PM
(#6092245)
1. Even if that's the current legal theory it's bullshit, and I can run code without having copies in ram if I need to.
2. 'if they are permitted by copyright law' Fair Use is part of copyright law, has that specific defense been challenged when it comes to software execution and caches in RAM?
Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
by dllthomas on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @07:05PM
(#6093495)
Regarding 1, I really don't believe you can run code without copies, or copies of a derivitave work, being made in the process.
That said, I can't read a book without reflections in my eyes...
Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
by Dylan16807 on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:29AM
(#6096711)
I could run it directly out of a ramdisk, or maybe transfer it to an embedded processor that can run it directly off the flash chip without even a processor cache. There's a whole variety of ridiculous things I could do to avoid the ridiculous restriction.
In practice I would trust fair use and try to use such as a defense if sued.
http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html
It is now well-accepted that copyright protects computer programs and other digital information, whether they are in readable source code form or are an executable program that is intended to be understood only by a computer. Copies are made whenever the program is transferred from floppy disk to hard disk or is read into the computer’s memory for execution, and those copies will infringe the copyright of the computer program if they are not permitted by the copyright owner or by copyright law.