If GreaseMonkey can be classed an abominable derivative work, then so can a book review.īook reviews and other 'critical' publications are specifically excluded under fair use - and the way the law reads, if they weren't, they would clearly be breaching copyright. Only how you got the idea to make the script matters, and if you wrote the script to modify a certain page to do a certain thing, the script is probably derivative work of that page.
#Steam max payne 2 code
In the sense of the law, whether you 'explicitly include code written by others' or what the script does is completely irrelevant when judging whether something is a derivative work or not. They're not, in any sense of the word, automatically derivative works, unless they explicitly include code written by others. GreaseMonkey scripts are bog-ordinary JavaScript files that are executed by the web browser's JavaScript engine, and can manipulate the web page through the DOM that the browser exposes.
Taken from another perspective, the web designers can not control the user's browser, and if the browser decides to present the information to the user in a funny way, there's little you can do about it.Īre you suing ELinks developers for presenting the websites in a "derivative" layout that bears no resemblance to how you intended the site to be rendered? If GreaseMonkey can be classed an abominable derivative work, then so can a book review. But the fact remains that GreaseMonkey operates one layer above the content. So yes, GreaseMonkey influences the content. If a reviewer says "don't read this book", it has the potential to dramatically change the way the book is presented to the reader to wit, the reader might not read the damn thing. Or the novel's publisher saying "if you liked this novel, you'll probably like this other novel which we also published". Or a reviewer making fun of the novel's characters. If websites were novels, GreaseMonkey scripts would be the equivalent of a reader discussing the novels with others. Which is why your greasemonkey scripts will be evaluated on the same standards as someone writing a novel with another writers characters.
I own the rights to any GreaseMonkey script I write For further fun I'd expect the patcher to be fully copyrightable, but the patched copies to not be transformed) (Which theoretically means that they could distribute a patcher, and not be in violation of anything except DMCA. It is a lot more like taking off the copy protect tab on a VHS tape which means it isn't a new copyrighted work. it effectively didn't change the nature of the game). It might be considered a non transformative change (i.e. Still this really isn't even the issue for the whole Myth thing, I'm not certain this even counts as a derivative work. This really isn't that hard until you start parsing things that are chimeras. A blank paper work is almost never going to be derivative. So a palate shift of an included theme would be a derivative work. The key factor is originality of creative(and creative is defined broadly) input.
Still derivative works are a lot more narrowly defined than most people think. This is to extent true of just about anything.
#Steam max payne 2 crack
That text reportedly appears in the maxpayne2.exe file, implying that whoever compiled the Steam version of the game used Myth’s crack (which ostensibly removes the CD check) to allow the game to run without reference to optical media./r/programming is a reddit for discussion and news about computer programming Scan the picture above and you can almost make out the letter M-Y-T-H between the rest of the garbled text translation. Pirate releases often include a text file with information about the rip, including a group logo constructed using ASCII symbols. The screenshot purports to contain the ASCII logo of former pirate group Myth.
0 kommentar(er)
