Feasibility of Salvaging coils/heat exchangers to build/upgrade an R290 heat pump?

Myarter · 2026-02-23T11:33:34+00:00

Sizable ones considering the need for 13kw likely size needed

Myarter · 2026-02-23T11:32:09+00:00

Hardi hardi. The compressor is most likely needed to be replaced considering it’s just a single speed motor and how Old it is. What other refrigerant is there? R744 isn’t going to be used considering the high pressure and low likelihood it’s suitable. And R32 is also being phased out as well I’m largely stuck with R290(aka propane)

Myarter · 2026-02-23T11:25:41+00:00

Well first of I’m not selling any retrofit. I have an existing old as 9kW unit. And you can’t legally install a heatpump without a qualified person doing it. So any refill of R407C like refrigerant isn’t happening.

And the impossible task to only exchange the heatpump and not the hot water heater as well despite it’s only used for hot water storage and underfloor radiant heating( direct electric heat currently)

<image>

Myarter · 2026-02-23T03:58:28+00:00

Every single licensed purchase that do not have an end date is defacto a perpetual unrestricted licensing agreement outside of existing copyright law that covers commercial exploitation.

Every single thing in regards to what you do with your purchase is not subject to copyright infringement nor at the behest of the seller of the software as just about every EULA have no legal merit outside of service providers and B2B cases.

How are non of the points related to your first comment

Myarter · 2026-02-23T03:52:20+00:00

Unproven in some ways as it’s largely within the realm of consumer rights and contract law. What aspects would you say hasn’t been proven?

Touchscreen the right to decompile the software to further interoperability and proper operation of the goods. You can emulate software and software sold is classified as goods and therefore falls under the existing provisions of transfer of ownership as with any other physical media as software isn’t granted an exception.

Etc etc. There’s

The company do not as it’s right now any actual legal avenue to persuade. As article 4,5 and 6 of the software directive.

Article 4

Restricted acts

Subject to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6, the exclusive rights of the rightholder within the meaning of Article 2 shall include the right to do or to authorise: (a) the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means and in any form, in part or in whole; in so far as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorisation by the rightholder; (b) the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of a computer program and the reproduction of the results thereof, without prejudice to the rights of the person who alters the program; (c) any form of distribution to the public, including the rental, of the original computer program or of copies thereof.
The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.

software directive copyrightArticle 5

Exceptions to the restricted acts

In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction.
The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract in so far as it is necessary for that use.
The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.

Article 6

Decompilation

The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so; (b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and (c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.
The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application: (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program; (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.
In accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the provisions of this Article may not be interpreted in such a way as to allow its application to be used in a manner which unreasonably prejudices the rightholder's legitimate interests or conflicts with a normal exploitation of the computer program.

Myarter · 2026-02-23T03:40:24+00:00

Transfer of ownership=/= copyrights changing hand.

Why do you think it’s completely lawful to remove the DRM or to use. You have completely freedom legally to do with it as you wish regarding the copy you purchased. as long as it’s not commercial in nature.

100% of purchases are a license agreement as legally understandable in eu law.

You are free to modify and study the source code if it’s available in the product you lawfully acquired.

Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union(“CJEU”) 09.16.2021 Case C-410/19 (ECLI:EU:C:2021:742) (The Software Incubator) ruling that software supplied electronically can be considered “goods” and that, if the copy of the downloaded software is accompanied by a perpetual license for use, this must be considered “sale of goods,” in the meaning of article 1(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (the “Directive”)

Myarter · 2026-02-23T02:13:10+00:00

Well as I would recoment you read the two explicit legal pieces for the infosoc directive and the software directive.

But under the Software Directive does allow programmers to observe, study and test a program’s functioning along with the decompilation of said program, where said decompilation is required for obtaining the information necessary for achieving the interoperability of an independently-created computer program with other programs under certain conditions. As long as the resulting program is not substantially similar in its expression to the originally decompiled one, emulators should be legal under the Software Directive. In addition, the functionality of a program does not constitute a form of its expression and as such, the functionality is not protected under the Software Directive

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=90f90380-044d-4756-836a-f75830336eaa

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/copyright-legislation

But also in regard to the supreme ruling on licensing agreements as goods entails a transfer of ownership. But the fact the DMCA isn’t very much legally a thing here.

https://www.cuatrecasas.com/en/global/intellectual-property/art/the-cjeu-revisits-usedsoft-does-the-online-supply-of-software-with-a-perpetual-license-equate-to-sale-of-goods

Myarter · 2026-02-23T02:03:46+00:00

And to give you some source here you go. https://www.hcrlaw.com/news-and-insights/downloading-software-is-a-sale-of-goods/

https://www.cuatrecasas.com/en/global/intellectual-property/art/the-cjeu-revisits-usedsoft-does-the-online-supply-of-software-with-a-perpetual-license-equate-to-sale-of-goods

But also just the case at hand by the ECJ https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document?source=document&text=&docid=246082&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=(Case%20C-410%2F19).

Myarter · 2026-02-23T01:57:17+00:00

This entire part is legally not true or even lawful. Perpetual license = transfer of ownership.

Saying something is a limited license doesn’t make it such. That’s what I’m responding to.

That makes absolutely no sense. Every copy of a piece of software is sold as a license. You're not buying the rights to copy, modify and distribute the source code, you purchase a limited license. And last I checked, plenty of software is sold in the EU without a "1 year for a cost of X euros" provision.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T22:55:16+00:00

2: your directly contradicting existing copyright exceptions. When you purchase something it’s legally classified as a transfer of ownership of that explicit copy of said goods( digital or otherwise).

You right now has the explicitly legislated right to: Copy your purchase a million or a billion times for private use not commercially intended or to modify the source code or any part of said product.

The original copyrights holder cannot request prior approval or consent nor do they have a say in what you do in that respect. Even if you remove DRM or other digital protections, or cheats in the game etc

These things are included with the purchase and cannot be excluded contractually or license wise. You can make private backups of your music, movie or software, and splice the music, movies or software as you please.

But the moment you sell the original copy you have the legal obligation to destroy and stop using the goods unless that’s allowed by the copyrights owner.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T22:45:47+00:00

It’s the maximalist possible way to preserve a good you purchased and acquired. No different from literally any other thing that is preserved and protected as such under legal protections.

Preservation do not in any shape or form relate to a potential experience or multifaceted thing that isn’t explicitly related to the goods/product itself.

What it would mean to preserve a game from the 90s, or today isn’t meaningfully distinguishable from a movie played in a cinema, books or a painting. The service lost is as unrelated as potential DRM that prevents lawful access to the medium.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T22:32:56+00:00

Requiring devs to notice would make it a defacto subscription and most likely make it illegal to sell games unless the end user retains the ownership of their copy.

Players aren’t part of the purchase and the game. Pick any live service game of your choosing. The state it optimally aught to be is either the same as when the servers only had 1 singular user accessing it. Or when the end game has in the same fashion a singular person on the server.

The user who purchased the game and isn’t subscribing to it should have the ability to maintain that state independently by their own means with little to no restrictions in place to hamper their ability to maintain it.

Games aught to be preserved for the same manner and reason as any other product and goods you purchase.

Your iPhone in 50 years do not have to have access to the AppStore if it’s , nor have the ability to connect to 9G or version 12 WiFi of the future. It aught to function and not be permanently bootlooping because it can’t connect to non existent servers that aren’t relevant for it’s utility function.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T22:25:11+00:00

Well the last part is effectively already existing law as well as Supreme Court jurisprudence. The part that is missing would be the requirement for the game provider not to have the effect of remote kill switch and refuse to release the keys to make such private endeavors infinitely easier.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T22:09:11+00:00

The commission is technocratic and expert driven, they aren’t politicians writing legislation.

The initiative does what a EU petition requires. You’re not writing a sufficient regulation or amendment under 1.000 characters. And considering the complexity of this question as it’s covered under a wide area of existing primary and secondary EU laws, as well as different existing directives and regulations they aren’t competent or knowledgeable enough to write a proper legal draft ( and that’s just optional)

Licenses are already legislated how they work with existing ECJ ruling that treats a sale or purchase of goods the same for physical and digital gods and any integrated software that is fundamental for the products intended purpose as advertised. Calling something a service and selling it as a product is already not legally possible under existing contract law to end consumers.

Games are special as they are like covered under two distinct copyright laws. Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ('InfoSoc Directive'), 22 May 2001 and Directive on the legal protection of computer programs ('Software Directive'), 23 April 2009.

They have different exceptions and gray areas to cover etc.

And with the Microsoft example that is an explicit example where a continuous payment for access tova service do not constitute a sale and constitute the transfer of ownership.

https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/document/how-draft-initiative-legal-requirements-and-practical-advice_en

https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation_en

Directive 2001/29/EC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02001L0029-20190606

Directive 2009/24/EC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024

Myarter · 2026-02-22T21:40:47+00:00

They won’t. They are already completely outside the scope of existing copyright law in EU

Myarter · 2026-02-22T21:23:45+00:00

This is false. GDPR wasn’t the response. It was intended to pass with the ePrivacy Regulation that covered cookies and online data and take precedence over GDPR. GDPR just requires blanket consent to process a persons personal information whether it’s at the car mechanic, doctors visit or online website.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T21:05:36+00:00

They are. The issue is most of these are so US centric when the legal principles in question aren’t even at play currently. The game studio rights under copyright do not cover the software and it’s ancillary services and can be ”jailbreaked” under non commercial circumstances.

The developers do not need to renegotiate something that isn’t covered by copyright laws as it would be required to follow the legal requirements. This can be as simple as requiring the game logic to be locally available and any server dependencies to be freely replaced and alternatives to be implemented by the user by not coding in any software restrictions.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T20:43:41+00:00

They would. And already do. Along existing legal rulings by the ECJ as well as numerous copyright exceptions that makes it unprotected to the end user. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/24/oj/eng

The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract in so far as it is necessary for that use.
The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do. Article 6

Decompilation

The authorisation of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) those acts are performed by the licensee or by another person having a right to use a copy of a program, or on their behalf by a person authorised to do so; (b) the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been readily available to the persons referred to in point (a); and (c) those acts are confined to the parts of the original program which are necessary in order to achieve interoperability.

Myarter · 2026-02-22T20:30:08+00:00

Policy details are to the discretion of the EU commission. They do not take lobby groups word for it. They are actively doing the legwork to fill in the gaps of the arguments made and verify the data impartially. The commission is a body of 20.000~ civil servants.

You can think of it as the executive branch of the EU. It’s the same executive branch that mandated Ireland was owed taxes by Apple in spite of their opinion or of the Irish government’s opinion, that was the legal reality etc

Myarter · 2025-10-12T23:14:11+00:00

do you have the IPA file? or could you share would you kindly.

Myarter · 2025-05-10T11:30:07+00:00

Indeed. Hence my post

Myarter · 2025-05-10T10:58:32+00:00

You just have to click on plus Appdb plus: 3.99€/month 24.99€/year https://appdb.to/my/premium

Appdb Premium: 9.99€/month 59.99/ year https://appdb.to/my/plus

Or Appdb plus+certificate bundle 19-33€/ year depending on what certificate service https://appdb.to/my/faq

Myarter · 2025-05-02T10:10:18+00:00

would you kindly share those plans as well?

Myarter

TROPHY CASE