Python obfuscation

Ben Sizer kylotan at
Thu Nov 17 10:29:23 CET 2005

Mike Meyer wrote:
> > Are you claiming therefore that it's more acceptable to you to have to
> > access the data remotely every time you use the software than once per
> > install?
> Alex's solution doesn't require special treatment for disaster
> recovery and/or planning, and as such is a valid answer to the
> question. It may be unacceptable for *other* reasons, but it beats
> dictating a disaster recovery plan for your software to the end user
> hands down on that basis.

Sorry, I just don't see this as being a significant difference that
makes 'access-always' acceptable and 'access rarely' unacceptable.

> > No, I am just pointing out that you are mixing up the concept of an
> > actual 'right' such as one embodied in a state's constitution, with an
> > implied 'right' that is just an exemption from committing an offence.
> > The term 'right' does not even appear in the relevant part of US
> > copyright law, except to state that it is a limitation on the copyright
> > holder's rights.
> You're still just playing semantic games. The common usage is "fair
> use rights." If you mean "... without infringing on the end users
> rights, except for fair use rights", then you should say that.

Call it what you like; still, I cannot be infringing on your right when
such a right does not exist to be infringed. If you want to term it a
'right', feel free, but that's not what you're granted under US law or
the Berne Convention. The 'common usage' here leads to a
misinterpretation of what you're entitled to. What is actually stated
is a limitation on the copyright holder's exclusive rights, which is a
very different matter.

Ben Sizer

More information about the Python-list mailing list