Lyvim Xaphir wrote: >On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 02:12, Damian G wrote: > >>>Well, someone who cannot post to the list because his ISP is out picking >>>daisies and not supplying reverse resolution sent me a missive pointing >>>out that no one buys Windows. It is a license one buys, nothing more. >>> >> >> >>hi Civileme. >> >>uhm.. i do not agree with that part, nor do i think a proper trial would, >>just like the case of that guy that god sued by Adobe for reselling. >> >>"as long as the transaction has the form of a sell, it is a sell". period. >> >>if "buying" a cd of any kind of product implied that license, then the >>buyer should get to read a printed copy of the license or something, >>before he made the purchase. >> >>but if you just enter a shop, lay off some money and take a CD, then >>you just bought a CD, and the bytes contained in it do not matter >>until you put that CD in a reader device and read them. >>there's no such thing as "when you buy that CD you are really buying a >>license". >> >>Namely put, as long as you do not put the CD into a CD reader, >>it technically is just a piece of plastic to you. >> >>that's how that Adobe trial ended anyway.. >> >>Damian >> > > >Civ does have a point. According to the EULA, you do NOT own the >software; you are only granted a license to use the software at >MicroShaft's behest. When you buy the CD, you are indeed buying a >license. Now wether you decide to USE that license or not at whatever >time in the future is up to you; but that does not nullify the fact that >you purchased the license. If you want to leave that license on the >shelf, that's your right, but again it does not affect the fact that you >purchased a license, and your invoice is your proof of purchase for that >license. > >What I'm discussing here is basically YOUR contract with the seller of >the software. If we discuss another software seller other than M$, then >the terms of that EULA may well indeed dictate that you DO OWN the >software; in which case your assertion holds true. > >The bottom line is that no matter what you or I consider ethically right >with respect to what we bought, we both are legally bound by the terms >of use of the authors (copyrighters) wether we like that or not. The >USE of the software and agreement to the terms of use constitute a >contract; and a contract can say ANYTHING. M$ is a prime example of >that; they've redefined the myriad ways that a EULA can screw the common >man. > >LX > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com > There is one thing important to the difference between the Adobe case (which will almost certainly be appealed) and the Microsoft License--the license is click-wrapped on MS and was not on Adobe. In other words, you have to click to agree to the license terms in order to use MS software, thus agreeing to the contract. If you click on "Not Agree" then a message banner comes up with instructions on returning the software for refund, and informing you that you may not use the software.
Mnay versions of the EULA do indeed provide options on disposal of the system, indicating you may not transfer the software to another system, but they do imply that you can sell the system with its original software or bare. If now they are saying removal of the software cannot be legally accomplished within the terms of that license, then that is a new wrinkle and a modification of the original EULA, which the user may or may not have previously agreed to by clicking. Civileme
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
