EULA 不能禁止使用者 decompile 修 bug

Hacker News Daily 上翻到的,歐洲法院認為 EULA 不能禁止使用者 decompile 修 bug:「EU court rules no EULA can forbid decompilation, if you want to fix a bug (europa.eu)」,官方的英文版文件在這邊可以翻到,不過原始判決是法文:

* Language of the case: French.

這是 Top System SA 與比利時政府打的訴訟,法院認為修 bug 而需要 decompile 這件事情是合法的,即使考慮到 Article 6 的規範:

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question referred is that Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question referred is that Article 5(1) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program who wishes to decompile that program in order to correct errors affecting the operation thereof is not required to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 6 of that directive. However, that purchaser is entitled to carry out such a decompilation only to the extent necessary to effect that correction and in compliance, where appropriate, with the conditions laid down in the contract with the holder of the copyright in that program.

案子看起來應該還有得打?看起來好像不是最終判決...

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium), made by decision of 20 December 2019, received at the Court on 14 January 2020[.]

但不管怎樣,算是有些東西出來了... 然後 Hacker News 上面的討論就看到一些很歡樂的例子:

This becomes incredibly interesting in terms of e.g. Denuvo. This anti-piracy middleware has been shown to make games unplayable, and this EU law seems to support removing it.

哭啊怎麼提到該死的 Denuvo XDDD

原來 Oracle 與 Microsoft 裡的條款是這樣來的...

看到「That time Larry Ellison allegedly tried to have a professor fired for benchmarking Oracle」這篇文章的講古,想起很久前就有聽過 Microsoft 有這樣的條款 (禁止未經原廠同意公開 benchmark 結果),原來是 Oracle 在三十幾年前創出來的?而且這種條款還有專有名詞「DeWitt Clauses」,出自當初被搞的教授 David DeWitt...

Microsoft 的條款是這樣:

You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test … without Microsoft’s prior written approval

Oracle 的則是:

You may not disclose results of any Program benchmark tests without Oracle’s prior consent

IBM 的反而在 license 裡面直接允許:

Licensee may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the Program or its subcomponents to any third party provided that Licensee (A) publicly discloses the complete methodology used in the benchmark test (for example, hardware and software setup, installation procedure and configuration files), (B) performs Licensee’s benchmark testing running the Program in its Specified Operating Environment using the latest applicable updates, patches and fixes available for the Program from IBM or third parties that provide IBM products (“Third Parties”), and © follows any and all performance tuning and “best practices” guidance available in the Program’s documentation and on IBM’s support web sites for the Program…

OS X El Capitan (10.11) 軟體授權文件的白話翻譯

有人把 OS X El Capitan 的軟體授權文件翻譯成白話的 22 條英文說明:「OS X El Capitan License: in Plain English」,也就是這份文件:

其實有不少有趣 (?) 的設計...

Ptt 新版使用者條款的問題...

剛剛登入發現需要同意新版條款 (2.0),但有條文有問題啊...

1-2 的部份:

任何資料一經您上載、傳送、輸入或提供至本站時,除私人信件外,視為您已同意本站為非營利之無償使用、修改、重製、公開播送、散布、發行、公開發表該等資料,並得將前述權利在保留原作者資訊前提下,轉授權為非營利之使用(轉授權部分本站將列舉轉授權之網站並公告於本站 Announce 板,非本站或本站轉授權之網站未經同意使用您之資料,仍為侵權)。您並應保證本站使用、修改、重製、公開播送、散布、發行、公開發表、轉授權該等資料,不致侵害任何第三人之權利,否則應對本站負損害賠償責任(包括但不限於訴訟費用及律師費用等)。

以下資料在本次條文修正時表示站方可以將以下資料公開散佈:

  • 個人訊息 (水球紀錄)
  • 個人資料 (因為是你在註冊時輸入進去的)

後者由於受到「個人資料保護法」的法律保護,這項條文在碰觸這塊時會有很多可以防禦的方法。但前者明顯是漏洞...

然後我以為官方站名中的「BBS」這個詞彙應該大寫?不知道會不會出 2.0.1...