Robert Snyder wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:00:15 -0400, Richard Smoot
> <rsmoot@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>People should be really required to read The Windows or any other commercial
>>software EULA's. They make no promises their software will do what you
>>bought it for, and will take no responsibility for it's failings. They
>>put restrictions
>>on the user and grant you no rights. Mr. Gates reserves the right to say
>>your
>>$500.00 software license has been revoked and you have to destroy your copy.
>>You don't buy commercial software. You license it.
>
>
> Typical everyday computer user myth that they own the software. I
> only seen one time where a License has been pulled by microsoft and
> that was do to piracy.
>
> Other interesting thing.
>
> Apples EULA since 7.5.5 Mac OS is not allowed to be install on
> anything but a apple authorized computers. So basicly apple can come
> around and sue anyone useing basilisk II or SheepShaver or Pear PC.
>
>
>>Open source licenses are really less restrictive than the commercial ones.
>>
>>They talk about support. If say Corel went belly up tomorrow without
>>selling their products off to someone, who could legally upgrade and patch
>>their graphics and word processing software.
>>There have been a lot of orphans in less common commercial software.
>>For open source can you see a lack of support. If something is critical
>>for your company you can hire someone to fix it. You can't legally touch
>>any of the code in commercial software.
>>
>> Richard Smoot
>
> If Corel went belly up MS would by its assets in typical microsoft fashion.
>
In strictly, precisely accurate terms, my view is this:
There's no such thing as "intellectual property". There is intellectual
product, of course, but the only intellections you "own" are those inside your
head. Anything on paper, on magnetic recordable media, on CD, or in any other
portable fashion becomes simply part of the medium. The medium can be owned, of
course, and that means that Microsoft has all the right in the world to "lease"
their product and demand its return or destruction at any time.
A problem arises in that there is a very intentional attempt to obfuscate that
state of affairs in products "sold" by Microsoft and other major corporations.
They present the software as the purchased item, and actually lead the end-user
to believe they legally own something rather than making it abundantly clear
that the material is only provided on a lease basis.
Additionally, they have no right to prevent someone from making copies of their
CDs. While the physical media can be owned, licensed, and leased, the data that
is on it is freely reproducible and thus cannot be regulated in that manner.
Data is free, by simple fact of physical existence.
Before anyone starts quoting the law at me, I'm aware that copyright law
disagrees with my stated position here. I speak in ethical, not legal, terms.
-- Chad Perrin (apotheon .com .net .org) http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/sig-block.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:33:19 EDT