| ▲ | duskwuff 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
I don't think it's reasonable for a law to dictate how software must be developed. If a developer wants to create some software by taking some licensed code and modifying it, that's their prerogative - it seems rather overreaching for the law to mandate that any licensed code must be structured as a library. (And in practice it'd be rather limiting for that to be the case.) | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Maxatar 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Almost every law that exists about software exists to dictate what a consumer is or isn't allowed to do with software on their own computer using their own hardware. For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certain narrow circumstances; somehow this is what you find to be unreasonable? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | circuit10 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
It is of course reasonable to restrict what you can do with a product you’re selling for money. There are plenty of laws and regulations that already do this. Without these kinds of laws intellectual property wouldn’t even exist - copyright was only created to benefit society by providing an incentive for people to create and invent things It’s no different from mandating that the software can’t be malware that puts a ransom on your data, contain other people’s copyrighted content without permission, or just not work despite you claiming that it does when you sold it And it’s not mandating that anything is structured in a particular way, just that the game works as the buyer would expect and how they achieve that is up to them | |||||||||||||||||