Legality of distributing modified apps

[tarquel]

Hi all

I'm just wondering after seeing alot of links to modified version of programs (modified in order to install it something silently mainly) whether its legal to actually do this.

Take SpywareBlaster 3.x for example...

They don't provide a option to install it silently, so we all have to modify the package in order to do this.

Of course, doing it for our own use is still modifying it (which I'm sure they wouldn't approve of but aren't overally bothered about) but when people distribute it i.e. a link to their personal site/host etc, isn't this kind of illegal?

I've made a few of these modified packages for easy-of-use in the field and at work, but isn't this kid of wrong?

Please don't flame me for this one, but I just thought I'd bring it up for a discussion on it.

I'd love to provide a link to some of my modified creations i.e. Firefox 1.0.4, SpywareBlaster 3.4, Sun Java RE, etc. but I'm a bit worried about companies knocking on my "virtual" door saying "ummm.....you do know that you shouldn't have done that?" etc.

Whats the word people?

Regards,

N.

[rendrag]

if you were distributing the modified packages to make a profit, I could definitely see the companies banging down your door because you're making money off (mostly) their work.

However if you are saving people time by providing something they would have to have done themselves, I can't see how that's illegal.

[tarquel]

I agree there - i'd never charge for a modified package (unless allowed by the company of the software in question naturally).

But isn't the modification of the installer classed as modifying the software tho?

Cheers,

N.

[Dumpy Dooby]

JRE and Firefox are freeware. I don't know about that antispyware one, though.

Firefox is also open source, so you most certainly don't need to worry about that.

I can assure you that there is nothing in the DMCA that would legally prevent you from releasing your own packages ... as long as they don't require any hacking. However, there could be other copyright laws out there, but I highly doubt they'd apply.

I say you just stop being paranoid and release the packages. It's not that big of a deal.

[tarquel]

[grrrr just lost the reply i had been writing lol so excuse this messy reply]

I agree there - I'm known to be a tad paranoid but usually, there's reason behind my paranoia.

I was awaiting such a comment from someone

Whether it's freeware or not, isn't the point (although your'e quite right about open source programs - I'm sure theres no problem there).

If you modify the installer of a program, then surely its just the same as modifying the contents of a installer correct?

Regarding "hacking" - this is a bit of a general term really, but if you are refering to altering the contents of a package, then I agree - but some packages do do this, and - although they are not for any illegal reasons - it may not be proper to offer such packages.

Also, try not to abbreviate terms that others may not know. Call me thick (yes, you may ) but whats DMCA?

Please could some of the "older" members of the forum comment on this (no offense) to help me/us all clarify the legality of modified packages? (I know this is a bit vaugue but I think its useful for users new to modifying apps to know what they should and shouldn't do)

***

EDIT:

Just to show I'm not a complete a** here's one of the packages:

- Firefox 1.0.4 Automated Install / Update -

(only tested on XP SP2 so far - and dont worry if your icons start blinking lol but it works fine and contains no spyware or nasties I promise)

[Feel free to comment on the package if ya like via PM]

***

Regards,

Nath.

[tjhart85]

If you feel strongly, you could always try emailing the software company and asking them. Thats the easiest way to find out IMHO.

Personally, I don't see a problem, especially if its software I paid for. Freeware shouldn't pose a problem since its free.

If you have software you didn't pay for that you are modifying, then I can definitely see a problem.

Just my 2 cents.

[Tarun]

You're changing the installer, not the contents. Check here if you wish.

[Dumpy Dooby]

[grrrr just lost the reply i had been writing lol so excuse this messy reply]

I agree there - I'm known to be a tad paranoid but usually, there's reason behind my paranoia.

I was awaiting such a comment from someone 

Whether it's freeware or not, isn't the point (although your'e quite right about open source programs - I'm sure theres no problem there).

If you modify the installer of a program, then surely its just the same as modifying the contents of a installer correct?

Regarding "hacking" - this is a bit of a general term really, but if you are refering to altering the contents of a package, then I agree - but some packages do do this, and - although they are not for any illegal reasons - it may not be proper to offer such packages.

Also, try not to abbreviate terms that others may not know. Call me thick (yes, you may ) but whats DMCA?

Please could some of the "older" members of the forum comment on this (no offense) to help me/us all clarify the legality of modified packages? (I know this is a bit vaugue but I think its useful for users new to modifying apps to know what they should and shouldn't do)

***

EDIT:

Just to show I'm not a complete a** here's one of the packages:

- Firefox 1.0.4 Automated Install / Update -

(only tested on XP SP2 so far - and dont worry if your icons start blinking lol but it works fine and contains no spyware or nasties I promise)

[Feel free to comment on the package if ya like via PM]

***

Regards,

Nath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I suppose that my business law major has absolutely no relivance here, since after all, I am just a stupid newbie.

I'll go ahead and let you google DMCA and read up on it, as opposed to citing the lines that pertain to your question.

[RyanVM]

My take on it is that so long as I'm only repacking that which is freely available to start with, I don't see a problem with it. That being said, if I were ever asked to take one of my packages down by the copyright owner, I most certainly would.

And for what it's worth, MS is aware (as in, I've actually gotten emails from a guy from MS before) of my .NET package and update pack and they don't care

[cybpsych]

i don't think modifying the installer or installation-method should pose any legality issues.

the *only* legal issue (that i can think of) is when some1 modifed the code (reverse-engineer) or took some/all of the code for other purposes.

like RyanVM's case, MS' guy took a look at his .NET package and definitely found out that he *did nothing wrong* to modify their codes. He just *tweaked* the installer (or some other routines, i don't know).

as long as we don't touch the core code, i guess we should be fine on how we *repack* the appz.

maybe MS is forgiving in this, maybe not.

other developers may or may not like it.

[buletov]

...

And for what it's worth, MS is aware (as in, I've actually gotten emails from a guy from MS before) of my .NET package and update pack and they don't care

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MS should hire you to work for them...

[tarquel]

Whooops.... completely forgot about my topic here

*slaps his own wrists* - shame on me lol

Thanks for the comments guys, particularly RyanVM , tjhart85 and cybpsych.

Any more thoughts are most welcome - even quotes from specific software EULA's and/or websites would be handy.

I know this is a bit paranoid of me, but i think we need to be aware of it, in case one company decides to one of us or sumthin i.e. for allowing others to use it, distributing it, etc.

I'll make my hidden section/page "semi-public" on my site I think - based on what I've read here...

A good disclaimer on there should be handy too

EDIT:

Info is now in my sig so you all can find it again easier

Kind regards,

N.

Edited June 12, 2005 by it_ybd

[tarquel]

little bump to show that "my repackaged apps site" info is now in my sig.

[PM/post with any probs with any of the packages - all feedback is welcome]

Regards

N.

Edited June 12, 2005 by it_ybd