> In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17 USC 117.
> Once you've legally downloaded a program, you can compile it. You can run it. You can modify it. You can distribute your patches for other people to use. If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about.
Also in the United States, you usually do not own a copy of the software you used, you are merely licensed to use it and are subject to the terms of the EULA. Most EULAs expressly forbid reverse-engineering, decompilation, or modification. And yes, they are binding contracts; see Vernor v. Autodesk.
I have been wondering about this in regards to people claiming ownership of GPL code and wanting it removed despite priorly releasing said code under GPL what is the precedent there?
https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
> In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17 USC 117.
> Once you've legally downloaded a program, you can compile it. You can run it. You can modify it. You can distribute your patches for other people to use. If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing the software, you have nothing to worry about.