Legality of reverse engineering when licensing code stops working and the author is deceased? There is a piece of software floating around there called ASIO Link Pro, but apparently (and sadly) the author of that software has passed away. (Alternative to ODeus AsioLink for Audio Routing?, Reddit, November 2017.) Evidently the software needs to communicate with a license server which is no longer being maintained (or something like this) which has effectively rendered the software useless. In Reddit link above, you can see that people have come up with a patch from reverse engineering the product. I've included the EULA here for reference, but want to highlight this section specifically for this question. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble ASIO LINK PRO, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. So my question is: To what extent is such activity (reverse engineering, decompiling, disassembling) expressly permitted by applicable law? I get that it's complicated with multiple countries and everything, but let's just say US, UK, and AU as some examples... Full End User License Agreement IMPORTANT PLEASE READ THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE CONTINUING WITH THIS PROGRAM INSTALL: O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) End-User License Agreement (&quot;EULA&quot;) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) for AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) ASIO LINK PRO(s) identified above which may include associated software components, media, printed materials, and &quot;online&quot; or electronic documentation (&quot;ASIO LINK PRO&quot;). By installing, copying, or otherwise using ASIO LINK PRO, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. This license agreement represents the entire agreement concerning the program between you and O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543), (referred to as &quot;licenser&quot;), and it supersedes any prior proposal, representation, or understanding between the parties. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, do not install or use ASIO LINK PRO. ASIO LINK PRO is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. ASIO LINK PRO is licensed, not sold. 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. ASIO LINK PRO is licensed as follows: (a) Installation and Use. O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) grants you the right to install and use copies of ASIO LINK PRO on the number of computers for which a license has been purchased [e.g. A 2 machine license allows install on 2 computers] and each computer must be running a validly licensed copy of the operating system for which ASIO LINK PRO was designed [e.g., Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows 2003, Windows XP, Windows ME, Windows Vista]. 2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS. (a) Maintenance of Copyright Notices. You must not remove or alter any copyright notices on any and all copies of ASIO LINK PRO. (b) Distribution. You may not distribute registered copies of ASIO LINK PRO to third parties. Evaluation versions available for download from AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) website may be freely distributed. (c) Prohibition on Reverse Engineering, De-compilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble ASIO LINK PRO, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. (d) Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend ASIO LINK PRO. (e) Support Services. O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) may provide you with support services related to ASIO LINK PRO (&quot;Support Services&quot;). Any supplemental software code provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of ASIO LINK PRO and subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA. (f) Compliance with Applicable Laws. You must comply with all applicable laws regarding use of ASIO LINK PRO. 3. TERMINATION Without prejudice to any other rights, O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of ASIO LINK PRO in your possession. 4. COPYRIGHT All title, including but not limited to copyrights, in and to ASIO LINK PRO and any copies thereof are owned by O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of ASIO LINK PRO is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543). 5. NO WARRANTIES O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) expressly disclaims any warranty for ASIO LINK PRO. ASIO LINK PRO is provided 'As Is' without any express or implied warranty of any kind, including but not limited to any warranties of merchantability, non-infringement, or fitness of a particular purpose. O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) does not warrant or assume responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within ASIO LINK PRO. O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) makes no warranties respecting any harm that may be caused by the transmission of a computer virus, worm, time bomb, logic bomb, or other such computer program. O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) further expressly disclaims any warranty or representation to Authorized Users or to any third party. 6. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In no event shall O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, lost profits, business interruption, or lost information) rising out of 'Authorized Users' use of or inability to use ASIO LINK PRO, even if O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In no event will O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) be liable for loss of data or for indirect, special, incidental, consequential (including lost profit), or other damages based in contract, tort or otherwise. O DEUS AUDIO (ABN 53456965543) shall have no liability with respect to the content of ASIO LINK PRO or any part thereof, including but not limited to errors or omissions contained therein, libel, infringements of rights of publicity, privacy, trademark rights, business interruption, personal injury, and loss of privacy, moral rights or the disclosure of confidential information.```
I'm not sure this would be a copyright violation. 17 USC 117 says: (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner... Due to the shutdown of the license server, it is impossible to use the program without an adaptation. It is therefore an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program", and not infringing, in my opinion.
Pseudo-code written down somewhere is protected by copyright, even if the article containing it doesn't say anything about the pseudo-code contained in it (i.e. doesn't mention "this too is copyrighted"). For example, let us assume that the following isn't actual compileable / executable code in some extant programming language: procedure bubbleSort( A : list of sortable items ) n = length(A) repeat swapped = false for i = 1 to n-1 inclusive do /* if this pair is out of order */ if A[i-1] &gt; A[i] then /* swap them and remember something changed */ swap( A[i-1], A[i] ) swapped = true end if end for until not swapped end procedure It does nevertheless constitute an expression of an abstract algorithm. If it can be copied and pasted, it is an expression. If you run this through a filter to create executable code in some language, you will have created a derivative work (and possibly one with no copyright protection, if the conversion is totally automatic). If you read the lines and say "Ah, I know what that would be in Pascal", that has the modicum of creativity required to make your conversion protected, but you've still infringed the underlying work. On the other hand, a logical flow chart, which is a picture of the abstract idea of what to do, is copyright-protected only as a graphic object. If you look at it and it inspires you to write pseudo-code or actual code, you are not copying the flow chart.
How close is such a statement corresponding with the reality? Legally, such language is a meaningless statement of future intent that at best makes clear that the person making the statement isn't waiving any of their legal rights. Certainly, no infringer would have standing to sue if they failed to do so. Whether a joint venture member or foreign reseller could sue the company for failing to enforce its IP rights is another question that presents itself very differently and depends upon much more than what the warning labels state, such as the language in the joint partnership or reseller's agreement with the copyright owner. Also, in criminal copyright violation cases, even if the copyright owner asks for the maximum possible consequences, the U.S. Justice Department is under no obligation whatsoever to go along with that request. Likewise, a judge has no obligation to impose the maximum penalty allowed by law following a criminal conviction, even if the copyright owner and the U.S. Justice Department both request a maximum sentence for someone who pleas guilty or is convicted of the offense following a trial. In practice, something like 98% of federal criminal cases, and a similar percentage of federal civil cases, result in agreed resolutions which result in less severe penalties than the maximum penalties allowed by law. This happens as a result of a mutual agreement to resolve the case with a guilty plea, or a settlement agreement in a civil case, or both. Also, in practice, none of these companies, nor the federal government's prosecutors, have the resources to press anything but the most clear and serious copyright violation cases, and cases that are valuable for P.R. purposes. Anything else is essentially a random lottery from myriad cases that could have been brought in order to counteract the argument (both political and legal) that their copyright protections are empty and completely unenforced is a large part of the cases to which the statutes would make it seem that they apply. Also, in a case brought by a joint venture owner or reseller for failure to enforce a copyright which causes the partner damages, presumably in some sort of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty action, there would be no way to prove damages from all of the non-enforcement, since enforcing every known infringement would not be cost effective and would reduce the net profits of everyone involved.
This kind of piracy is unfortunately common. When your copyright has been violated, your available response is to sue the infringer. Yes, this costs money, and yes, many infringers get away with it. In the Free Software/Open Source community, a couple of actors including the FSF, gpl-violations.org/Harald Welte, and the Software Freedom Conservancy have sued GPL infringers. But they can only do that for copyrights that they hold themselves. For example, the FSF holds copyright for the GNU userland, whereas Welte and Conservancy hold copyright for parts of the Linux kernel. They do not hold copyright for your software so they cannot enforce the AGPL license on your behalf. What can be done fairly easily is to file a takedown request with platforms that host the infringing content. Under various safe harbor laws including the US DMCA, a platform is not responsible if they accidentally host infringing content uploaded by users. However, the platform has to take the content down if they're notified that the content is infringing. For example, you could file a DMCA takedown request with GitHub to take down their repository, in case they are using GitHub. The drawback is that a takedown notice can be contested by the alleged infringer, in which case the content is reinstated and you would have to sue. The platform is not allowed to make its own determination about whether you or the infringer is right.
Apparently Such Files May be Distributes or Sold Section 5.e of the Google APIs Terms of Service reads: e. Prohibitions on Content Unless expressly permitted by the content owner or by applicable law, you will not, and will not permit your end users or others acting on your behalf to, do the following with content returned from the APIs: Scrape, build databases, or otherwise create permanent copies of such content, or keep cached copies longer than permitted by the cache header; Copy, translate, modify, create a derivative work of, sell, lease, lend, convey, distribute, publicly display, or sublicense to any third party; Misrepresent the source or ownership; or Remove, obscure, or alter any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights notices; or falsify or delete any author attributions, legal notices, or other labels of the origin or source of material It might seem that 5.e.2 prohibits the suggested use. But if the text is in fact in the public domain,&quot;applicable law&quot; (that is, copyright law) permits you, or anyone, to &quot;Copy, translate, modify, create a derivative work of&quot; or otherwise use the content. Thus 5.e.2 does not apply. Points 3 and 4 would seem to indicate that the source, including title and author information, must be included or preserved in the output files, but seems to be the only relevant restriction that applies. Response to Comment A comment by user Brian Drake questions the theory of this answer, stating: The most you can say is that copyright law does not prohibit certain conduct (and even that is not clear: just because the text is in the public domain does not necessarily mean that the audio is in the public domain); this does not mean that copyright law expressly permits that conduct. US Copyright law does not define what constitutes the public domain. Rather it defines what is protected by copyright, and specifies some cases in whch a work is not protected. (For nexample, 17 USC 105 provides tht works of the US Federal Government are not protected.) Anything not included in the protection of copyright is in the public domain. This has been confirmed by many cour cases and legal writings. Law generally follows the rule &quot;Anything not forbidden is allowed.&quot; Audio as Derivitive Work An audio recording of a person reading a text aloud would be a derivative work of that text, and would normally have its own copyright, if created lawfully. (If the recording was of a text protected by copyright, made without permission and outside of fair use, it was not made lawfully and the infringer has no copyright in the recording at all.) But US courts have held that a work created by a mechanical or automatic process, including many computer programs, is not an &quot;original work of authorship&quot; and thus is not protected by copyright at all, and is thus in the Public Domain. The case of the &quot;Monkey Selfie&quot; is on point. (&quot;Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.2&quot; (PDF). United States Copyright Office. 22 December 2014. p. 22. &quot;To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.&quot; Moreover, if the audio were protected by copyright, it would presumably be owned by the person who ran the program, and 17 USC 106 specifically grants the copyright owner permission to distribute copies. Sources The Wikipedia article &quot;Public Domain&quot; reads in relevant part (citations omitted): The public domain consists of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. Those rights may have expired,[1] been forfeited, expressly waived, or may be inapplicable. ... As rights vary by country and jurisdiction, a work may be subject to rights in one country and be in the public domain in another. Some rights depend on registrations on a country-by-country basis, and the absence of registration in a particular country, if required, gives rise to public-domain status for a work in that country. ... Definitions of the boundaries of the public domain in relation to copyright, or intellectual property more generally, regard the public domain as a negative space; that is, it consists of works that are no longer in copyright term or were never protected by copyright law. According to James Boyle this definition underlines common usage of the term public domain and equates the public domain to public property and works in copyright to private property. However, the usage of the term public domain can be more granular, including for example uses of works in copyright permitted by copyright exceptions. Such a definition regards work in copyright as private property subject to fair-use rights and limitation on ownership *&quot;How Can I Use Copyright-Free Works (in the Public Domain)?&quot; by Nolo Press reads: Copyright law gives creators certain exclusive rights. These rights include the exclusive ability to copy, distribute, and perform the copyrighted work. But copyright is not infinite. Rather, it provides copyright holders with protections for a limited duration. When a work becomes available for use without permission from a copyright owner, it is said to be &quot;in the public domain.&quot; Most works enter the public domain because their copyrights have expired. The Legal Information Institute (LII) article &quot;public domain&quot; reads: The public domain includes every creative work that is no longer protected by a copyright, trademark, or patent. Creative works that are no longer protected are owned by the general public rather than the original creator. As such, the work is free to be copied, performed, or otherwise used by anyone. &quot;Copyright and Scholarship: Public Domain&quot; from Boston College Libraries reads in relevant part: &quot;Public domain&quot; works are not protected by copyright. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it. An important caveat regarding public domain material is that collections, new editions, and derivative works of public domain material may all be protected by copyright. With collections, an author could collect public domain works in a book or display them on a website, and the collection as a whole could be protected by copyright, even though individual works within it are not. *&quot;Welcome to the Public Domain&quot; (Stanford libraries) reads in relevant part: The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it. Wikipedia article &quot;Monkey selfie copyright dispute&quot; *&quot;A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos&quot; (AP) reads in relevant part: A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos, a federal judge said Wednesday. U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in federal court in San Francisco that &quot;while Congress and the president can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act.&quot; *NARUTO, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, People forthe Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., v. DAVID JOHN SLATER; BLURB, INC., ; WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.&quot; (Ninth Circuit full opinion April 23, 2018 No. 16-15469, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04324-WHO) reads in part: We must determine whether a monkey may sue humans, corporations, and companies for damages and injunctive relief arising from claims of copyright infringement. Our court’s precedent requires us to conclude that the monkey’s claim has standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, we conclude that this monkey—and all animals, since they are not human—lacks statutory standing under the Copyright Act. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court
A simple EULA does not absolve you from legal responsibility. The law that you need to be acquainted with, if you are dealing with the US (i.e. might be sued in the US), is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in particular Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which states the "safe harbor" provisions. Aspects of DMCA safe harbor are covered in many Law SE questions. In essence, you have to provide a way for rights holders to complain that someone has infringed their copyright on there site, and you have to take down allegedly infringing material: and there are a number of legal formalities to attend to in doing this. The main point is that you can't just ignore the problem and hope it goes away, and you can't just say it is not your responsibility, which is what a simple EULA does. To be protected, you need a "designated agent" where complainers can contact you. You provide the information online (as well as stating the DMCA policy, which can be in the EULA), and also register that information with the Copyright office (online). The complaint has to be in writing, and most of the burden is on the author of the complaint, but you still have to be sure that the complaint is legally conforming. The complaint has to say what was infringed (e.g. the URL), the identity of the protected content (title of the book, for instance), and provide the complainer's signature and contact information. It also requires the complainer to say that they have a good faith belief that the material is illegally copied (no permission, and not otherwise allowed by law), and a perjury statement that the foregoing is accurate and authorized by the copyright holder. When you have a conforming notice, you must "expeditiously" remove / disable the infringing material (there is no definition of "expeditious"), notify the user, then wait for a proper counter-claim (same general form as the take-down claim but where the user denies the posting the material was illegal. If you get a counter-claim, you notify the alleged copyright owner and wait for them to file suit in 10 days. If they don't do that, you restore the material. Here is a sample complaint, and a sample counter notice. Also, this document (look for the download tab) reorganizes the legal language so that requirements are put in logical order and not randomly scattered throughout the US Code.
I realize it has been eight months, but I believe I can offer an opinion. Given the nature of the question, please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and my opinion is no substitute for professional legal counsel. [Preparing this post has been an educational experience and my opinion should in no way be interpreted as expert opinion] Assuming you have not infringed on any patents, the relevant legal challenges Valve could try include breach of contract, copyright infringement, and trade dress infringement. Breach of Contract The potential breach of contract occurs because the Steam client setup application requires you to accept a contract of adhesion (The License) before the software can be installed. I could not find a copy of The License online in plain text (this is separate from the Steam Subscriber Agreement, which you also agree to by accepting The License), but you can read it any time by running the Steam client setup application which is available at [redacted due to low rep - the Steam website]. These so-called "shrink wrap licenses" are of questionable legal value, depending on how the licensee assents to the contract. People often bring up Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. In that case, the only reference to a license was on the download webpage, and it was only visible if the user scrolled down past the download button - Netscape argued unsuccessfully that clicking the download button indicated assent to the terms of the license. The Steam client setup application has a prominent dialogue box showing the terms of The License and requiring your explicit assent before installation can continue. A more relevant case may be ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, where the Seventh Circuit ruled that a license agreement was valid where the licensee had to click on a dialogue box assenting acceptance to the agreement. In short, you may be required to defend yourself under the terms of The License. If the licenses are thrown out as unenforceable, the prosecution would probably move towards copyright infringement. Section 1 Paragraph C of The License states (emphasis added): Except as expressly set forth elsewhere in this License Agreement, you may not, in whole or in part: copy, photocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code from, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program. Now you assert that there has been no reverse engineering, that you made yours "completely from scratch using completely different styling and images (even different website inside the client that is mine)". You may be challenged on these claims in court, for example comparison of source codes could rule out reverse engineering. I will touch on derivative work status later. Note that under Section 5, the provisions of Section 1 Paragraph C do not apply after you have uninstalled the Steam client software. This means in the case that you [can prove you had] uninstalled the Steam client software before making your own client, you would have a defense to breach of contract under Section 1 Paragraph C. However... The License also includes the terms of the "Steam Agreement", viewable online at http://www.steampowered.com/agreement. The Steam Agreement takes effect when you register for your Steam account. Section 2 Paragraph G of the Steam Agreement echoes the above referenced Section 1 Paragraph C of The License, and even survives termination of the Steam Agreement (your steam account being cancelled). Now assuming you can provide defense against reverse engineering, you may need a defense against the charge that your work is a derivative work. Your case may be pretty strong if you can show that your client was indeed written from the ground up - which rules out the possibility of deriving your program code from Steam's code as literary copyrights go. The prosecution could try saying you have copied the audiovisuals of their program, but your program was written "from scratch using completely different styling and images". Eventually prosecution may have to move into trade dress infringement. Copyright Infringement In a case of alleged copyright infringement, the first order of business is to prove there is a copyrighted work to begin with. The work in question is the Steam client by Valve Corporation. Again, I am not an expert but I could not find any copyright registration for the Steam client (http://www.copyright.gov/records/ -> Post-1978 Records -> Search by Name "Valve Corporation"). Copyright registration is required before infringement suits can be filed. Valve can register after infringement occurs but they will be limited to actual damages and profits. Nevertheless Valve does claim copyright over its product. A notice is posted on The License and Steam Agreement, and from the client itself the Help menu contains a command "Legal Info" which opens a webpage containing a copyright notice. Since 1979 it has not been necessary to post a copyright notice, but a notice helps break a defense of innocent infringement. You imply that you copied elements of the Steam client "to give customers a similar feel to what they are used to [the Steam client]". In your specific case innocent infringement may not be a valid defense. It seems you are most concerned about copyright infringement over the menus. An extremely relevant case is Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc. In that case the First Circuit held that the menu heirarchy for Lotus 1-2-3 (the progenitor of virtually all menu heirarchies today) was uncopyrightable as a "method of operation" under U.S.C. 17 Section 102(b). We think that "method of operation," as that term is used in [U.S.C. 17 Section] 102(b), refers to the means by which a person operates something, whether it be a car, a food processor, or a computer. Thus a text describing how to operate something would not extend copyright protection to the method of operation itself; other people would be free to employ that method and to describe it in their own words. Similarly, if a new method of operation is used rather than described, other people would still be free to employ or describe that method. We hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable "method of operation." The Lotus menu command hierarchy provides the means by which users control and operate Lotus 1-2-3. If users wish to copy material, for example, they use the "Copy" command. If users wish to print material, they use the "Print" command. Users must use the command terms to tell the computer what to do. Without the menu command hierarchy, users would not be able to access and control, or indeed make use of, Lotus 1-2-3's functional capabilities. If specific words are essential to operating something, then they are part of a "method of operation" and, as such, are unprotectable. This is so whether they must be highlighted, typed in, or even spoken, as computer programs no doubt will soon be controlled by spoken words. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision with an even court (Judge Stevens recusing), so no national precedent was set. Nevertheless the ruling has not been overturned - the First Circuit goes into great detail explaining their decision, and I do recommend reading the ruling. We have already discussed derivative works and reverse engineering with contracts, and the same defense would apply under copyright law: source code comparison. Trade Dress Normally things like design and layout are left to patent law. A desperate prosecution, however, may claim that by copying their "look and feel" you infringe on their trade dress. The relevant text is part of U.S.C. 15 Section 1125(a) (emphasis added): (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which- (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. (2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. Defense against such a claim would be showing that the elements of Steam's "look and feel" were adapted because of functional reasons - see example rationale in the previously mentioned Lotus v. Borland. Overall, so long as you did write the program from scratch and there are no patent violations, you have in my opinion a strong case. There may be moral questions about unfair competition (why should you be allowed to capitalize off Valve's work put into the Steam client?), to which I would point out that your product does not appear to be in direct competition with the Steam client. Without direct competition or confidence in evidence of IP infringement it is quite unlikely Valve will file suit against you. If you would rather avoid even the possibility of legal action, you could always contact Valve directly and ask for a license.
Primary Theory I suspect there might not be a legal answer to this question. I have always suspected a sort of pseudo-intellectual elitism (or simple preference or carelessness) with passive voice sentence construction in general. I sense license writers have not (yet) escaped this general trend. I would love someone to prove this theory incorrect. But, alas, I doubt it will happen. Alternative Theory But because this is a Law Q&amp;A site, I will advance the following alternative theory. I don't believe it's correct. But I will advance it because it's the only possible explanation I can think of that might be even remotely based on legal reasoning... Maybe they are just basing their construction on the way the law itself is written? For example, if the law says, "Permission must be granted..." Then it would follow that a writer who wants to comply with the law might choose, "Permission is hereby granted..." instead of something like "The authors hereby grant permission..." or, as the OP suggested, "You may..."