What? Are you really suggesting that software can’t be legally distributed by its author? And that a license is required before I can make copies for my own use? This is completely incorrect. What about fair use?
The same law or principle that allows me to use the pages of a book as wallpaper. Why can't I use my legally obtained copy in anyway I choose so long as it doesn't violate any law or contract? My point is that copyright only protects from the making of copies, and licenses are something else entirely.
I am not. Of course it's not legal to use pirated software. By definition pirated software is illegally obtained. But a legally obtained copy can be run without a license, if none was required to obtain the software.
As for "leaked" software: again, if copies are illegally obtained then of course it's illegal to use them.
This case establishes that the copy in question was in fact a "copy" as defined by the copyright act, but the infringement was due to the disposition of the parties' rights via a license - not inherent to the copyright. This ruling is highly specific to the case.
I find it difficult to invest time in reading this when the author demonstrates such a basic misunderstanding of copyright:
>...software, by default, probably cannot be used, modified, or redistributed without a license from the copyright holder.
Of course it can be used and modified. It's the redistribution that is covered by copyright law.
>...you can’t really use software without someone giving you permission.
This is completely false, except where a license is required to obtain a copy to begin with. It is the license that creates the restriction, not the copyright.
If I've legitimately obtained a copy of your work, then I'm entitled to use it, read it, even make my own copies for personal use. Any new work I attempt to distribute would be measured against your original to determine infringement.
Not buying any of it. If we judge by previous longevity, my guess is that Garamond will be the only one of those fonts still in use in the 30th century.
I don't think the Guardian article supports your assertion that "several actors confirm it". It mentions that Kohl made a similar statement, not that Kohl was an "actor" in terms of the original "promise" or that he confirmed it was made.
The "promise" wasn't exactly as suggested in the quote. It wasn't agreement, but part of a back-and-forth thought problem. Gorbachev was asked if he preferred a reunited Germany to be a member of Nato and thus constrained by that alliance, or a free-actor--implying that an unaligned Germany would return to it's expansionist ways. Gorbachev followed up by asking if Nato would expand further east and Baker said no. But this was all part of the hypothetical posit.
Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not.
Strange article; not sure why it's getting so much traction. It completely ignores the work of most of the administration, other than a sideways nod to the CIA's Bill Burns.