Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 19:15 UTC, submitted by tupp
Thread beginning with comment 525061
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-13
I don't know, but the concept for trying to enforce a license that's not technologically enforceable is ludicrous. For example, if you were using a piece of software I wrote, and there was a clause in the license that said you could only use it while standing on one leg, how is that enforceable? Answer: it isn't. And how is that any different than saying you can only run it on one machine, or that you can't give it to any of your friends? Answer: it isn't.
Best chance you've got for enforcing a license is to have all the runnable bits (or at least enough to make it impossible to copy) behind a paywall, such that you're in total control of how/where/when people can use it. But even for movies/music, that still wouldn't work, since if it can be seen or heard, it can be copied.