If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
CoreAVC was never 'free' and was distributed with no license what so ever, meaning that you cannot distribute it unless CoreCodec was to give you permission to do so.
Just curious here. if you released software to the public and had no licensing( that either prohibited or allowed this software to be copied or reproduced or transferred ownership from one party to another) than how can you say that it is not public domain. You released a product with no limitations if there was no license. Correct? Obviously from your side i understand your dilemma you created the software and it was distrubuted without a license as you said.
Just curious here. if you released software to the public and had no licensing( that either prohibited or allowed this software to be copied or reproduced or transferred ownership from one party to another) than how can you say that it is not public domain. You released a product with no limitations if there was no license. Correct? Obviously from your side i understand your dilemma you created the software and it was distrubuted without a license as you said.
Ok, as much as I hate being a wet blanket...
Copyright law covers the right to make and distribute copies. Thanks to laws passed to be compliant with the Berne Convention, everything is covered under copyright when it's created (you have to register copyright for a lot of things, but that doesn't change the fact it's covered).
By default, the law doesn't allow you to make copies at all. A license grants you freedoms that copyright law doesn't allow you to. If you were allowed to do these things under copyright, then there wouldn't be any point in a license, would there? Modern EULAs pretend to be both contracts and licenses, because a true license is entirely optional, and can only grant you freedoms.
So, an example: I write a book, paint a picture, or do some sheet music. I give you a copy. You can use it, burn it, etc. without permission from me. You do, however, need permission to copy it and distribute copies (with some minor fair-use exceptions).
So, suppose I give my work to you, but this time I include a license: "You are free to make and distribute copies, provided this notice, and the copyright notice remain intact." That is a perfect example of a license - it gives you freedoms you wouldn't otherwise, provided you follow the terms ("this notice, and the copyright notice remain intact").
So, how does this apply to computer software? Well, the original thought was that a license was required, because when you run and install software, it's copied to the disk (sometimes) and to ram (always). Copyright holders thought "Great! We can do whatever we want, and change the terms to whatever we want after purchase!" When you purchase a car, for example, they can't sell you the car and then say "you can only use Ford service on it", or "You can only use Chevy parts".
Regardless, copyright law (in the US, at least - YMMV) now specifically grants the right to make copies for installation, running, and archiving of purchased software. In other words, You don't need an EULA or license to use software you have already bought. The modern EULA pretends to be a "contract", yet it attempts to modify the terms of sale, post-sale, supposedly applies to minors, and supposed applies whether or not you've had a chance to read it beforehand.
So, since EULAs aren't needed anyway, and most of them have more holes in them than swiss cheese, we (CoreCodec) have (so far) chosen to avoid perpetuating the fraud that EULAs are fully enforcable.
Ask yourself this - when you buy an XboX or PS2 video game, is it not computer software? Does the fact it comes without an EULA (most of the time) make it fair game to copy? Of course not.
Comment