realistically a copywright has only been relinquished if the said works have in part or whole been available through any public domain. by doing so the license is released by the licensor.
thats pretty much the law.
but as brother padrana states, law only exists to add a legal form to an abstract concept.
again with the argument of Unknown_K, entropy all though morally valid is technically illegal, as simply it may retain somthing that could be sold on and hence worth value.
but inrespects to modifying software here is the legal definition (act 1999 dpa)
one can disassemble, in part or whole, any software to which a lisence has been granted for the use of said software. as long as.
1. to provide desired functionality wereby
1.a desired funtionality is not readly available
1.b where the lisencesor cannot make available said functionality.
a lot of software try to infringe on ones rights by declaring a license as read is an agreement with (no decompilation or such can be undertaken of software for and said purpose).
so where does it leave us.
I that find morally duplicating your own software for your own needs is infact your own business, and in truth you are legaly allowed to do so (with limmitation)
insofar as decompiling software, well i believe that by denying our right grants to much propriety power to the licensors.
But the biggest gripe if have is the fact is that:
I am leaglly allowed to duplicate for backup purposes any software i own.
copy protection is infringing on my LEGAL right. so morally if they infringe on my right is it not fair that i should infringe on thiers?
two wrongs may not make any right.. but by and large i am sure the make a good even