subject:"Re\: \[OT\] EULA and legality"

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Richmond wrote:

> The other day I was pruning fruit trees in our garden in our country villa
> here in Bulgaria,
> using a ladder I bought (logically enough) in a B & Q store in Dundee,
> Scotland. I noticed there was
> a sticker attached to it that said "not recommended for people over 90
> kilos"; this was rather funny
> insofar as I weigh 93 kilos (and have done for years). Presumably if the
> ladder were to buckle under
> me the makers would, quite rightly, say "you were warned, hard cheese, you
> won't get a red penny
> out of us". What they have done is set limits on how far they are prepared
> to fork out if the ladder
> breaks, what they have NOT done is stated that heavy numbers like me are
> not allowed to use the
> thing; at my own risk of course. Now that seems reasonable.
>
> A sticker on my ladder saying "Fatties like you (90 kilos and over) cannot
> use this thing, and this is part
> of a EULA" seems quite unreasonable.
>
>
Interesting, whilst I agree with the general gist of your post, and that
Apple simply use the EULA so they don't have to support OS X users who are
using it in VMs or on hackintoshes, I don't agree with your presumption
about the 90 kilo recommendation.

Unless there was something else in the EULA for the ladder that indicated
that the 90 kg was a structural limit then if I bought the ladder and it
bent under the weight of 93 kgs I'd be going back for a refund and buying a
better one. The 90 kg recommendation must be non-structural, stability is
the first thing that comes to mind. The larger the person you put at the
top of a ladder the easier it is for that person to topple the ladder.
Based on the width of the legs the manufacturer may have simply determined
that above 90 kgs the ladder is more easily toppled, not that it would
break. Also you have the size of the feet. Depending on their size/tread,
above 90 kg the psi might be such that the feet will sink into soft soil,
or bruise wood floors.

If on the other hand the ladder will actually bend, buckle or break at a
load above 90 kg, I would think it appallingly negligent of the
manufacturer NOT to put a sticker that said, MAX LOAD 22.5 KG (that's
assuming of course an engineering safety factor of 4 - typical for
ladders). In some countries Opperational Health and Safety laws require
ladders to come with Max Load stickers.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Peter Alcibiades

The legal situation and any remedies would be quite different.  So, yes. 
Probably that would be OK.  It would depend on market share - this is
similar to the DRDos situation in Win 3.  You would have to argue anti
competitive tactics.

Its the contractual restriction that probably would not hold up in the EU.

As to whether they should have to?  Whatever the law is.  There is no
obligation to sell anything in particular at retail.  They could do a lock,
they could not sell at retail, they could drop the clause



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654940.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Peter Alcibiades <
palcibiades-fi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> I think the restriction on use is fine, because its just a product feature.
> Rev is perfectly entitled to have whatever features it wants.
>

So it would then be perfectly reasonable for Apple to leave the EULA
restriction in and then include in their software, code that actually
determined that the software was running on Apple hardware and then refuse
to work if it wasn't? This would be a 'feature' of the software, that it
was for Apple hardware only. That would then make it legal in the EU?

What a giant waste of time for Apple to go through the process of
implementing code that does this, when everyone knows the hackintosh
community will crack it as fast as the DVD ripping community crack the
protections on commercial DVDs.

Really, is that the difference, because Apple don't physically write the
code to prevent you from doing this you can't be expected to honour that
part of the EULA that is actually in plain English - and by the way the
Apple website has versions of it's EULA in 18 different languages and from
the 3 I'm familiar with the bit about 'Apple hardware' is about as
non-lawyer speak as it can get.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Eller

Whew!  I wondered what strange interpretation of the wording had I missed.
 lol

~Roger


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

> I looked up other graphics and found one that was just a sign, not
> attached to anything, like a tree, and really easy to read, and posted that
> instead.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
> > What do you mean by a clean version?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> >> I posted it to Sign Smiles, but a clean version of it.
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Peter W A Wood

Richmond

On 12 Sep 2012, at 23:03, Richmond wrote:

> A bicycle cannot be used to brew coffee, and I am absolutely sure that 
> anybody claiming that the
> fact that their bike cannot be used as a coffee-maker is in some way "unfair" 
> would be laughed out of court.

Are you really absolutely sure? The company that I used to work for had many 
clients in the US insurance business. One of my colleagues told me of a legal 
case his client lost, they were sued by somebody who had an accident when they 
used a lawnmower to cut a hedge. The instructions that came with the lawn mower 
did not sufficiently clearly state that it couldn't be used as a hedge trimmer.

Did your bicycle come with a warning not to use it to make coffee?

Peter

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

I looked up other graphics and found one that was just a sign, not attached to 
anything, like a tree, and really easy to read, and posted that instead. 

Bob


On Sep 12, 2012, at 3:48 PM, Roger Eller wrote:

> What do you mean by a clean version?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> 
>> I posted it to Sign Smiles, but a clean version of it.
>> 
>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2012 08:34 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
> No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know
> that they are abiding by anything at all.
 Reminds me of this EULA...  ;-p
 
 
>> http://hunting.outdoorzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/deer-baiting-corn-pile-castle-doctrine.jpg
>>> 
>>> Lovely stuff: that one has gone on the 'secret' Facebook page for my
>> language school pupils
>>> as of now.
>> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Eller

What do you mean by a clean version?


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

> I posted it to Sign Smiles, but a clean version of it.
>
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Richmond wrote:
> > On 09/12/2012 08:34 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
> >>> No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know
> >>> that they are abiding by anything at all.
> >> Reminds me of this EULA...  ;-p
> >>
> >>
> http://hunting.outdoorzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/deer-baiting-corn-pile-castle-doctrine.jpg
> >
> > Lovely stuff: that one has gone on the 'secret' Facebook page for my
> language school pupils
> > as of now.
>


>
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

heh heh a little like, "Ask 10 psychiatrists for a diagnosis and you will get 
20 opinions."

On Sep 12, 2012, at 1:36 PM, François Chaplais wrote:

> "Put three lawyers in a room and they will go out with five opinions."
> Le 12 sept. 2012 à 22:33, Bob Sneidar a écrit :
> 
>> I think Lawyers are really good at what they do, because they have perfected 
>> the skill of ignoring evidence to the contrary. 
>> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:12 AM, François Chaplais wrote:
>> 
>>> there is also this one:
>>> "There are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law, and those who know 
>>> the judge."
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

I posted it to Sign Smiles, but a clean version of it. 

On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Richmond wrote:

> On 09/12/2012 08:34 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
>>> No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know
>>> that they are abiding by anything at all.
>> Reminds me of this EULA...  ;-p
>> 
>> http://hunting.outdoorzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/deer-baiting-corn-pile-castle-doctrine.jpg
> 
> Lovely stuff: that one has gone on the 'secret' Facebook page for my language 
> school pupils
> as of now.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Richmond 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know that they are
>>> abiding by anything at all.
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

"Put three lawyers in a room and they will go out with five opinions."
Le 12 sept. 2012 à 22:33, Bob Sneidar a écrit :

> I think Lawyers are really good at what they do, because they have perfected 
> the skill of ignoring evidence to the contrary. 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:12 AM, François Chaplais wrote:
> 
>> there is also this one:
>> "There are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law, and those who know 
>> the judge."
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

I think Lawyers are really good at what they do, because they have perfected 
the skill of ignoring evidence to the contrary. 

Bob

On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:12 AM, François Chaplais wrote:

> there is also this one:
> "There are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law, and those who know 
> the judge."

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Richard Gaskin


Richmond wrote:

When is a EULA to be viewed as an attempt at manipulation and coercion
rather than just a statement
of the vendor's feelings about how far they are prepared to extend their
support for their product.


It doesn't matter.

This will be my last post on this thread, I promise.  And besides, I 
smell a cheese call on this soon anyway, but here's my final thought:


It doesn't matter because if you feel their license is fair then you 
have no conflict, and if you feel the license is unfair then it would 
not be in your interests to support them by giving them your money.


No one on this list can decide for you whether you feel Apple's EULA is 
fair.


That's for either you to decide for yourself today, or for a court to 
possibly decide in the future.


In the meantime, there's still code to write so you might as well just 
write it on a system you feel good about supporting.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


On 09/12/2012 08:34 PM, Roger Eller wrote:

No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know
that they are abiding by anything at all.

Reminds me of this EULA...  ;-p

http://hunting.outdoorzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/deer-baiting-corn-pile-castle-doctrine.jpg


Lovely stuff: that one has gone on the 'secret' Facebook page for my 
language school pupils

as of now.




On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Richmond wrote:


No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know that they are
abiding by anything at all.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


On 09/12/2012 08:19 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

On 9/12/12 12:12 PM, François Chaplais wrote:

there is also this one:
"There are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law, and those 
who know the judge."


Well, here in Bulgaria the vast majority are the second type.



LOL! I was staying out of this discussion but that was too good to 
ignore.





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Eller

> No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know
> that they are abiding by anything at all.

Reminds me of this EULA...  ;-p

http://hunting.outdoorzy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/deer-baiting-corn-pile-castle-doctrine.jpg


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Richmond wrote:

>
> No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know that they are
> abiding by anything at all.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread J. Landman Gay


On 9/12/12 12:12 PM, François Chaplais wrote:

there is also this one:
"There are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law, and those who know the 
judge."


LOL! I was staying out of this discussion but that was too good to ignore.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> In the "English speaking world" there are all sorts of legal 
> systems (just for example, crossing the border between 
> England and Scotland one moves from some sort of homemade 
> outgrowth of Anglo-Saxon law to Roman law) and all sorts of dialects.

English EULAs are written in Cockroach, a special version of English that's
incomprehensible to most and almost impossible to kill.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

there is also this one:
"There are two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law, and those who know the 
judge."
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> There is another point which is is maybe overlooked by people 
> whose official language is English. It seems to me that EULAs 
> suffer from a "vice de forme" in the sense that they are 
> often written in a language that is not an official language 
> of the country where it is supposed to apply. Specifically, 
> most EULAs are solely written in English and rarely 
> translated because (I assume) the vast amount of money it would take
> 1) to translate the EULA into one official language of the 
> target country/countries
> 2) to adapt the text to the local jurisdiction (while keeping 
> in mind that international treaties, in particular concerning 
> IP, apply above national law)

That's true - also there is the risk that the altered language of the EULA
will alter the intent. I know of some that include a translated version, but
with the caveat that says "if there is any variance in interpretation of
this agreement in this language, the English version trumps it", or
something similar.

> This the point of view from the vendor's jurisdiction. If the 
> end user is in another country, another conclusion may be 
> drawn locally.

That's the conundrum. Any jurisdiction should be looking out for its
citizens, but often they step beyond their own borders of realistic
enforcement - it happens all the time, just between US states.

For example, in the USA, many states want taxes to be collected from vendors
who ship into their state (digital goods as well). In general, to do that,
there has to be some form of tax nexus - meaning, some element of that
vendor in the state. Some states try to redefine that in various ways to try
to grab more taxes. Some states have tried to come up with a plan to support
each others sale tax collections, and that hasn't really worked out. Then,
there are states (like where I live) where there is no state sales tax at
all, and we just thumb our noses at the idea of collecting taxes for someone
else.

Now with this going on between the states, how can European countries even
dream of US companies collecting VAT without a tax nexus?


> If you want to have an idea of what a mess this can be, look 
> at the World Trade Organization.
> The European Union (unfortunately) also gives good examples 
> of how difficult these things are difficult to achieve in 
> practice (take for instance the managing of the euro :( ).

We have lots of legal fun to look forward to over the next several decades.
I guess what we all need is an alien invasion to set matters into
perspective. Lets hope they bring lots of tourism money with them.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On the lighter side of things I like this (dark) cartoon. 
There is a blind beggar with a sign that says "I am blind and my dog is dead." 
Somebody passes by and thinks "I have worries of my own".
Too bad binaries are off in this list.
Well, let us say that I have worries of my own, and some involve legal matters, 
and excessive amateurism in this area irritates me.
I will not elaborate, since our big brother Google archives this for all to see.
I hope the cartoon story had you smile (even if darkly).
Best,
François
Le 12 sept. 2012 à 17:58, Bob Sneidar a écrit :

> Bit harsh, eh?
> 
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 6:16 AM, François Chaplais wrote:
> 
>> Pay yourself a lawyer, Peter, instead of trolling this list. 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Do you know what the US Supreme Court would say if we brought all this before 
them? "Has there ever been a case where Apple enforced this part of the EULA 
you object to? No? Then get out of our courtroom and stop wasting our time." 
Courts in the US cannot rule on something unless there is a case pending that 
is being appealed. 

My point is, all this is moot until Apple (or anyone) tries to enforce the 
particular bit of the EULA some object to. I have a way of looking at the law 
that some of you may have heard before. Think of three great pillars upon which 
a platform rests, large enough to support a city. One pillar is called 
Legislation, another Enforcement, the third Prosecution. 

If any one of these pillars fail, the other two fail. Where no law is codified, 
nothing can be enforced or prosecuted. Where no enforcement is actively 
pursued, no legislation will have any effect, as no violators will ever be 
taken to task. Where no prosecution is undertaken, no legislation or 
enforcement will have any weight, as there will be no consequence. 

Until Apple and Microsoft or anyone else never choose to actively catch and 
enforce their EULA's, or enforce the particular bits of their EULA's we may 
have an issue with, there is no point in belaboring the issue. Has anyone ever 
been taken to court for running Windows in a VM? I honestly don't know, but if 
the answer is no, then why fret? 

Bob

On Sep 12, 2012, at 6:45 AM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Richard Gaskin
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That's one question, and it may be interesting to see how it plays out if
>> Apple ever enforces the "Apple branded hardware" clause in their EULA.
>> 
>> Why is it assumed that Apple must be the one to go to court to enforce
> it's rule.
> 
> If the EULA is so horribly unethical then why isn't there are groundswell
> of anti-EULA sentiment. It certainly worked for the Focebook ToCs that
> caused a public outcry last year, and they were subsequently changed. Apple
> had a similar episode with it's iBooks EULA and it was subsequently changed.
> 
> Millions of people, including many all over Europe are more than happy to
> abide by the EULA as it stands now.
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Bit harsh, eh?

On Sep 12, 2012, at 6:16 AM, François Chaplais wrote:

> Pay yourself a lawyer, Peter, instead of trolling this list. 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Peter Alcibiades

Kay, I think the restrictions on number of computers is probably fine, its
the copyright holder exercising his rights.  Rev is rather generous here.

I think the restriction on use is fine, because its just a product feature. 
Rev is perfectly entitled to have whatever features it wants.  If there were
to be a condition imposed solely as a contractual restraint on what sort of
programs you were allowed to write with it, and there was no product feature
limiting it, very dubious, but its a product feature or limitation and I
can't see anything wrong with it.

Peter



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654897.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


On 09/12/2012 05:48 PM, François Chaplais wrote:

There is another point which is is maybe overlooked by people whose official language is 
English. It seems to me that EULAs suffer from a "vice de forme" in the sense 
that they are often written in a language that is not an official language of the country 
where it is supposed to apply. Specifically, most EULAs are solely written in English


Further to that, most EULAs are written in one dialect of English (the 
one used in the USA).


The other day a pupil of mine asked me what 'cremenently' meant, having 
watched Disney's cartoon

of "Robin Hood".

Anybody here know what 'cremenently' means Fancy that in a EULA?

The English and the Americans are divided by a common language.


  and rarely translated because (I assume) the vast amount of money it would 
take
1) to translate the EULA into one official language of the target 
country/countries
2) to adapt the text to the local jurisdiction (while keeping in mind that 
international treaties, in particular concerning IP, apply above national law)
Best,
François
Le 12 sept. 2012 à 16:34, Lynn Fredricks a écrit :


The question is whether some particular terms in a contract,
whether entered into by EULA or other means, are enforceable
and lawful in the jurisdiction one lives in.

You bring up a interesting point here, and one I believe to be a growing
problem in the future.

EULAs are granted under the laws of a place designated by the vendor, not
under the laws of where the user is located. Severability usually is based
upon changes under that law, not under the laws of wherever the user is
located.

In the USA, there are some serious differences in state laws - one big
example is the treatment of "chance", contests, raffles, etc. Typically how
that's handled is that the agreement you go into when you participate in the
contest is that the terms include the following: "Void where prohibited" -
meaning, if some local law is contrary to the implementation of the contest,
nobody in that area may participate in the contest.

Vendors in specific jurisdictions will take into account the law of a
specific location only (in the US, state, and in some respects, federal
law).


In the "English speaking world" there are all sorts of legal systems 
(just for example,

crossing the border between England and Scotland one moves from some sort of
homemade outgrowth of Anglo-Saxon law to Roman law) and all sorts of 
dialects.



If a EULA is invalidated someplace, the vendor can simply terminate
your rights under the license.

This the point of view from the vendor's jurisdiction. If the end user is in 
another country, another conclusion may be drawn locally. International (or 
bilateral) treaties are signed to cure these potential headaches. But there 
remains to put into place an enforcement institution that is accepted by all 
parties.
If you want to have an idea of what a mess this can be, look at the World Trade 
Organization.
The European Union (unfortunately) also gives good examples of how difficult 
these things are difficult to achieve in practice (take for instance the 
managing of the euro :( ).


Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


On 09/12/2012 04:45 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:


That's one question, and it may be interesting to see how it plays out if
Apple ever enforces the "Apple branded hardware" clause in their EULA.

Why is it assumed that Apple must be the one to go to court to enforce

it's rule.

If the EULA is so horribly unethical then why isn't there are groundswell
of anti-EULA sentiment.


Because the vast majority of folk really don't exercise their minds on 
this sort of ethical/legal
question at all; they just install the software, click the "accept" 
button, and get on with whatever

they have to get on with.


  It certainly worked for the Focebook ToCs that
caused a public outcry last year, and they were subsequently changed. Apple
had a similar episode with it's iBooks EULA and it was subsequently changed.

Millions of people, including many all over Europe are more than happy to
abide by the EULA as it stands now.


No, they are not "happy to abide"; they don't even know that they are 
abiding by anything at all.




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


On 09/12/2012 04:44 PM, Warren Samples wrote:

On 09/12/2012 08:24 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

There are other questions we can answer for ourselves, like:

Do we want to enter into a relationship with a vendor who has already
clearly expressed in writing that they don't want us?

Forcing someone into a relationship just makes for an unhealthy
relationship.

There are other fish in the sea.

Choose one.  Be happy.

--
  Richard Gaskin



Indeed! Instead of "can I get away with this" maybe ask "why bother". 
I'm sure my negative interpretation of many of Apple's policies and 
decisions over the years is a sign of some grave personality disorder, 
but what I viewed as demonstrations of coercion and manipulation


When is a EULA to be viewed as an attempt at manipulation and coercion 
rather than just a statement
of the vendor's feelings about how far they are prepared to extend their 
support for their product.


The other day I was pruning fruit trees in our garden in our country 
villa here in Bulgaria,
using a ladder I bought (logically enough) in a B & Q store in Dundee, 
Scotland. I noticed there was
a sticker attached to it that said "not recommended for people over 90 
kilos"; this was rather funny
insofar as I weigh 93 kilos (and have done for years). Presumably if the 
ladder were to buckle under
me the makers would, quite rightly, say "you were warned, hard cheese, 
you won't get a red penny
out of us". What they have done is set limits on how far they are 
prepared to fork out if the ladder
breaks, what they have NOT done is stated that heavy numbers like me are 
not allowed to use the

thing; at my own risk of course. Now that seems reasonable.

A sticker on my ladder saying "Fatties like you (90 kilos and over) 
cannot use this thing, and this is part

of a EULA" seems quite unreasonable.

helped make it easy to move away from OS X as it became necessary to 
move from PPC to Intel. It was my decision to have no part of it.


When the questions don't seem to have good answers it's often because 
you're not asking good questions ;)


Who has been overdoing the Ludwig Wittgenstein a bit?



Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


On 09/12/2012 04:39 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Peter Alcibiades <
palcibiades-fi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


What is needed is an EU case in which either running the thing in a VM or
on
the wrong sort of hardware was ruled breach of contract and some kind of
ruling made.  I don't know of one.  Maybe someone else does.  Lets hear it.


The closest I can think of is the EU banning smart chips in printer
cartridges that prevented users from using non-OEM cartridges. I am not
that familiar with the case but on the surface the whole decision had
nothing to do with the legality of the manufacture requiring the use of OEM
parts (car and plane manufactures do it all the time) but was more about
recycling. Here, it is a post purchase restriction that you use OEM
cartridges, or else you void the warranty. In the EU if a non-OEM cartridge
fails (leaks, heads clog) and damages the printer is the manufacturer still
required to repair the printer in the warranty period?

Peter, I'm just wander what you think the EU make of these Runrev post
sales restrictions:

1) Basically you can use LiveCode as an individual on as many computers as
you own, or you can use it on one computer with multiple users. You may not
switch between methods of use at any time.

I assume you believe Runrev has no right to tell you how many computers you
can install LC on and whether or not the computer can be in single or multi
use.


I have indicated before that I have my legal versions of RunRev (and, 
for some "odd" reason
I don't have any illegal versions) installed on my machines at home, on 
an ancient G3 iMac at my
parents' home, and a slightly less ancient G3 iMac in my school. As 
nobody but nobody that is
ever likely to visit my parents' home, or mine, or my school has a clue 
how to use RR?LC,
or have the passwords to my machines I don't even stop to think: only I 
can get into those machines,
so only I can use the RR/LC installed upon them, and, as I am a mere 
mortal I'd be hard put to be

programming on computers in two or 3 quite distinct places at the same time.

This has got precious little to do with reading a EULA and a lot to do 
with common sense and the practicalities of day-to-day life.




2) Basically LiveCode has certain limits built in, such as you can't use a
script to modify another script by more than 10 lines.


Built-in limits are built-in limits and as such have nothing to do with 
legality, morality or honesty;

that is how the software IS.



I assume you believe Runrev has no right to limit what you do with the code
you write. Now I know that Runrev will quite happily negotiate a change in
those limits if your particular circumstance warrants it, but that is still
a negotiated settlement and would be a limit set by Runrev, what you are
suggesting is in the EU Runrev has no right to include that 10 line limit.


Where did Peter suggest that? Must have missed it.

Surely, a piece of software is what it is, and legislating bodies cannot 
tell a programmer

what capabilities s/he may or may not build into it?

As far as I can see the 10 line limit is a decision taken by the people 
who make Livecode, just
as a bicycle maker decides that all his bikes should be painted black - 
and if I come along

and demand a pink bike the maker is quite entitled to say "Boo" to me.

There is an important distinction between what a thing is capable of, 
and how a customer uses the thing.


A bicycle cannot be used to brew coffee, and I am absolutely sure that 
anybody claiming that the
fact that their bike cannot be used as a coffee-maker is in some way 
"unfair" would be laughed out of court.


If I turn my bike upside down and use the back wheel as part of a 
home-made electrical generator
that should be up to me, and a EULA that states that I cannot do that 
seems a bit out of place.




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

There is another point which is is maybe overlooked by people whose official 
language is English. It seems to me that EULAs suffer from a "vice de forme" in 
the sense that they are often written in a language that is not an official 
language of the country where it is supposed to apply. Specifically, most EULAs 
are solely written in English and rarely translated because (I assume) the vast 
amount of money it would take
1) to translate the EULA into one official language of the target 
country/countries
2) to adapt the text to the local jurisdiction (while keeping in mind that 
international treaties, in particular concerning IP, apply above national law)
Best,
François
Le 12 sept. 2012 à 16:34, Lynn Fredricks a écrit :

>> The question is whether some particular terms in a contract, 
>> whether entered into by EULA or other means, are enforceable 
>> and lawful in the jurisdiction one lives in.
> 
> You bring up a interesting point here, and one I believe to be a growing
> problem in the future.
> 
> EULAs are granted under the laws of a place designated by the vendor, not
> under the laws of where the user is located. Severability usually is based
> upon changes under that law, not under the laws of wherever the user is
> located.
> 
> In the USA, there are some serious differences in state laws - one big
> example is the treatment of "chance", contests, raffles, etc. Typically how
> that's handled is that the agreement you go into when you participate in the
> contest is that the terms include the following: "Void where prohibited" -
> meaning, if some local law is contrary to the implementation of the contest,
> nobody in that area may participate in the contest.
> 
> Vendors in specific jurisdictions will take into account the law of a
> specific location only (in the US, state, and in some respects, federal
> law).

> If a EULA is invalidated someplace, the vendor can simply terminate
> your rights under the license.

This the point of view from the vendor's jurisdiction. If the end user is in 
another country, another conclusion may be drawn locally. International (or 
bilateral) treaties are signed to cure these potential headaches. But there 
remains to put into place an enforcement institution that is accepted by all 
parties.
If you want to have an idea of what a mess this can be, look at the World Trade 
Organization.
The European Union (unfortunately) also gives good examples of how difficult 
these things are difficult to achieve in practice (take for instance the 
managing of the euro :( ).

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lynn Fredricks
> President
> Paradigma Software
> http://www.paradigmasoft.com
> 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> The question is whether some particular terms in a contract, 
> whether entered into by EULA or other means, are enforceable 
> and lawful in the jurisdiction one lives in.

You bring up a interesting point here, and one I believe to be a growing
problem in the future.

EULAs are granted under the laws of a place designated by the vendor, not
under the laws of where the user is located. Severability usually is based
upon changes under that law, not under the laws of wherever the user is
located.

In the USA, there are some serious differences in state laws - one big
example is the treatment of "chance", contests, raffles, etc. Typically how
that's handled is that the agreement you go into when you participate in the
contest is that the terms include the following: "Void where prohibited" -
meaning, if some local law is contrary to the implementation of the contest,
nobody in that area may participate in the contest.

Vendors in specific jurisdictions will take into account the law of a
specific location only (in the US, state, and in some respects, federal
law). If a EULA is invalidated someplace, the vendor can simply terminate
your rights under the license.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Richard Gaskin


Kay C Lan wrote:


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:


That's one question, and it may be interesting to see how it plays out if
Apple ever enforces the "Apple branded hardware" clause in their EULA.


Why is it assumed that Apple must be the one to go to court to enforce
it's rule.


I used Apple as an example only because it was the subject of Richmond's 
original post.  If there's another OS vendor who also makes their own 
hardware and prohibits use of the OS on other hardware the same 
principle would apply.


There may be other cases less specifically relevant, like the Nintendo 
game cartridge suit being waged throughout the world.  But as I noted 
earlier, aside from one anomalous victory for a cloner in France most 
jurisdictions have sided with Nintendo.


Personally I don't see a lot of productive value in attempting to force 
people to take my money.  It's just and OS and in the 21st century OSes 
are commodities, certainly enough to choose from that we needn't spend 
much time complaining about not having an OS to use.




If the EULA is so horribly unethical then why isn't there are groundswell
of anti-EULA sentiment. It certainly worked for the Focebook ToCs that
caused a public outcry last year, and they were subsequently changed. Apple
had a similar episode with it's iBooks EULA and it was subsequently changed.


Yes, that was my point.  The EULA may stand at least in part because 
it's untested, and it's untested because almost no one cares.


The only people affected are those with the skills to be able to install 
OS X on non-Apple-branded hardware, and most of those have already 
chosen a different OS whose EULA doesn't attempt to prevent them from 
running it so we're really only talking about a very small subset of a 
subset of the computer market.


For myself, when I build a custom machine I'd rather use an OS from a 
vendor who actually wants me to install it on that machine, and in 
return I'll support that vendor and those who make apps for that OS.


I can get an immediately useful result that way, allowing me to get to 
work far more easily than kvetching about a vendor who doesn't want me 
to use their software.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:

>
> That's one question, and it may be interesting to see how it plays out if
> Apple ever enforces the "Apple branded hardware" clause in their EULA.
>
> Why is it assumed that Apple must be the one to go to court to enforce
it's rule.

If the EULA is so horribly unethical then why isn't there are groundswell
of anti-EULA sentiment. It certainly worked for the Focebook ToCs that
caused a public outcry last year, and they were subsequently changed. Apple
had a similar episode with it's iBooks EULA and it was subsequently changed.

Millions of people, including many all over Europe are more than happy to
abide by the EULA as it stands now.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Warren Samples


On 09/12/2012 08:24 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

There are other questions we can answer for ourselves, like:

Do we want to enter into a relationship with a vendor who has already
clearly expressed in writing that they don't want us?

Forcing someone into a relationship just makes for an unhealthy
relationship.

There are other fish in the sea.

Choose one.  Be happy.

--
  Richard Gaskin



Indeed! Instead of "can I get away with this" maybe ask "why bother". 
I'm sure my negative interpretation of many of Apple's policies and 
decisions over the years is a sign of some grave personality disorder, 
but what I viewed as demonstrations of coercion and manipulation helped 
make it easy to move away from OS X as it became necessary to move from 
PPC to Intel. It was my decision to have no part of it.


When the questions don't seem to have good answers it's often because 
you're not asking good questions ;)


Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Peter Alcibiades <
palcibiades-fi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> What is needed is an EU case in which either running the thing in a VM or
> on
> the wrong sort of hardware was ruled breach of contract and some kind of
> ruling made.  I don't know of one.  Maybe someone else does.  Lets hear it.
>

The closest I can think of is the EU banning smart chips in printer
cartridges that prevented users from using non-OEM cartridges. I am not
that familiar with the case but on the surface the whole decision had
nothing to do with the legality of the manufacture requiring the use of OEM
parts (car and plane manufactures do it all the time) but was more about
recycling. Here, it is a post purchase restriction that you use OEM
cartridges, or else you void the warranty. In the EU if a non-OEM cartridge
fails (leaks, heads clog) and damages the printer is the manufacturer still
required to repair the printer in the warranty period?

Peter, I'm just wander what you think the EU make of these Runrev post
sales restrictions:

1) Basically you can use LiveCode as an individual on as many computers as
you own, or you can use it on one computer with multiple users. You may not
switch between methods of use at any time.

I assume you believe Runrev has no right to tell you how many computers you
can install LC on and whether or not the computer can be in single or multi
use.

2) Basically LiveCode has certain limits built in, such as you can't use a
script to modify another script by more than 10 lines.

I assume you believe Runrev has no right to limit what you do with the code
you write. Now I know that Runrev will quite happily negotiate a change in
those limits if your particular circumstance warrants it, but that is still
a negotiated settlement and would be a limit set by Runrev, what you are
suggesting is in the EU Runrev has no right to include that 10 line limit.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

as far as I understand, and for France only, laws are voted by the legislative 
branch, and decrees are issued by the executive branch. Decrees specify (or 
attempt to) how the law should be applied in practice. A law which does not 
have an applicative decrees will never be applied and is considered as good as 
dead. There have been numerous occasions where some parts of the "opinion" have 
pressured the executive branch (the government) not to issue a decree 
consecutive to a law because they considered the law to be unfair or whatever. 
This has succeeded in a very few cases.
As far a morality is concerned, this thing can be stretched in so many 
directions that I prefer not discuss of it on a mailing list.
Best,
François
Le 11 sept. 2012 à 23:04, Richmond a écrit :

> Yes; generally one should obey the law, or, if one disagrees with the law and 
> chooses to break it
> be prepared to take the legal consequences.
> 
> The question that I first raised involves all of these things; legality 
> versus morality and more.
> 
> The fundamental question that nobody has answered properly is whether a EULA 
> is legally
> binding.
> 
> Some people on the Use-List feel that it is immoral to disobey a EULA, some 
> do not (I for one),
> while some feel it is illegal. Quite a few seem quite unable to distinguish 
> between legality and morality.
> 
> You have, also made an interesting distinction between laws and decrees - the 
> former, as far
> as I understand, being contractual, and the second being imposed. Now, EULAs 
> might be seen
> as decretal to those living outwith the legal jurisdiction inwith they were 
> drawn up, and as such,
> being non-contractual are not binding.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Richard Gaskin


Peter Alcibiades wrote:


The question isn't whether EULAs are contractually enforceable.  As a class,
the answer is that they are.  That means that consenting to them can lead to
a valid entry into a contract.  CAN.  That is not an issue.

The question is whether some particular terms in a contract, whether entered
into by EULA or other means, are enforceable and lawful in the jurisdiction
one lives in.


That's one question, and it may be interesting to see how it plays out 
if Apple ever enforces the "Apple branded hardware" clause in their EULA.


But that particular question can only be answered by a court.

There are other questions we can answer for ourselves, like:

Do we want to enter into a relationship with a vendor who has already 
clearly expressed in writing that they don't want us?


Forcing someone into a relationship just makes for an unhealthy 
relationship.


There are other fish in the sea.

Choose one.  Be happy.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Pay yourself a lawyer, Peter, instead of trolling this list. It's not a judge's 
opinion on the law, but it is better than your mixture of ill supported 
arguments.
Le 12 sept. 2012 à 14:59, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :

> The question isn't whether EULAs are contractually enforceable.  As a class,
> the answer is that they are.  That means that consenting to them can lead to
> a valid entry into a contract.  CAN.  That is not an issue.
> 
> The question is whether some particular terms in a contract, whether entered
> into by EULA or other means, are enforceable and lawful in the jurisdiction
> one lives in.
> 
> It is my belief, and i'd be very interested to hear of cases on this either
> way, that in the EU under the terms under which OSX and Windows are sold,
> they are sold and not licensed.  Regardless of what is in the EULA, and
> regardless of whether the delivery is accompanied by a signed assent to the
> EULA or a click through. 
> 
> I also believe that post sale restrictions on use are unenforceable in the
> EU.  Regardless of whether they occur in a EULA or in a condition of sale
> document which one signs.  I don't believe anyone can sell you a CD recorder
> and stipulate in the conditions of sale that you only use their own brand
> blanks.  For instance.  I don't believe Wolfcraft can stipulate as a
> condition of sale that you shall not use someone else's hoe attachment.  Or
> the hose and tap people can stipulate as a condition of sale that you shall
> not connect someone else's tap or coupler to theirs.  
> 
> Just because a given form of entry into a contract may be OK, it does not
> follow that all contracts entered into in this way are valid and binding. 
> its not really about EULAs.  Its about the law in your country and the
> clause.
> 
> In the EU, for instance, one can swear a contract in which he gives up his
> consumer protection rights in exchange for an extended warranty or some
> other reason.  The act is not valid, because it is contrary to consumer
> protection law, and you do not have the power to do that.  It will not be
> enforceable. 
> 
> What is needed is an EU case in which either running the thing in a VM or on
> the wrong sort of hardware was ruled breach of contract and some kind of
> ruling made.  I don't know of one.  Maybe someone else does.  Lets hear it.
> 
> 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-12 Thread Peter Alcibiades

The question isn't whether EULAs are contractually enforceable.  As a class,
the answer is that they are.  That means that consenting to them can lead to
a valid entry into a contract.  CAN.  That is not an issue.

The question is whether some particular terms in a contract, whether entered
into by EULA or other means, are enforceable and lawful in the jurisdiction
one lives in.

It is my belief, and i'd be very interested to hear of cases on this either
way, that in the EU under the terms under which OSX and Windows are sold,
they are sold and not licensed.  Regardless of what is in the EULA, and
regardless of whether the delivery is accompanied by a signed assent to the
EULA or a click through. 

I also believe that post sale restrictions on use are unenforceable in the
EU.  Regardless of whether they occur in a EULA or in a condition of sale
document which one signs.  I don't believe anyone can sell you a CD recorder
and stipulate in the conditions of sale that you only use their own brand
blanks.  For instance.  I don't believe Wolfcraft can stipulate as a
condition of sale that you shall not use someone else's hoe attachment.  Or
the hose and tap people can stipulate as a condition of sale that you shall
not connect someone else's tap or coupler to theirs.  

Just because a given form of entry into a contract may be OK, it does not
follow that all contracts entered into in this way are valid and binding. 
its not really about EULAs.  Its about the law in your country and the
clause.

In the EU, for instance, one can swear a contract in which he gives up his
consumer protection rights in exchange for an extended warranty or some
other reason.  The act is not valid, because it is contrary to consumer
protection law, and you do not have the power to do that.  It will not be
enforceable. 

What is needed is an EU case in which either running the thing in a VM or on
the wrong sort of hardware was ruled breach of contract and some kind of
ruling made.  I don't know of one.  Maybe someone else does.  Lets hear it.


François Chaplais-3 wrote
> 
> 
> Almost anywhere, if you use a baseball bat to squash somebody's head,
> you are bound to trouble. Even if it is not told so in the user's manual.
> It called the law. 
> BTW, the same applies even if the bat is not your own.
> If the law says that electronically accepting a EULA is binding, that's
> the way it is.
> 
> In France there is a general legal principle that states that nobody is
> supposed to ignore the law (understanding it is another matter
> unfortunately). For this reasons, all laws, decrees, etc are published in
> a free newspaper that anybody can consult in any city hall; you can also
> subscribe to to it for a zero fee. The same texts are now available online
> (at least the recent ones). I do not know if this is true for other
> countries, but it makes sense, anyway.
> 
> Best,
>   François
> 




--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654885.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Paul Dupuis

On 9/11/2012 5:04 PM, Richmond wrote:
> The fundamental question that nobody has answered properly is whether
> a EULA is legally
> binding. 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA. While primarily US focused, it
lists a number of court cases. The short answer is a EULA is as
enforceable as the company that issued the EULA is willing to take you
to court to enforce the terms OR you're willing to spend a fortune to
take the company to court to prove terms of the EULA unenforcable. I
expect it is not much different in any other part of the world.

-- 
Paul Dupuis
Cofounder
Researchware, Inc.
http://www.researchware.com/
http://www.twitter.com/researchware
http://www.facebook.com/researchware
http://www.linkedin.com/company/researchware-inc

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Peter Haworth

I think that's the crux of this whole discussion.

If someone accepts an agreement of any sort that contains conditions that
are illegal, then it's highly questionable if they are bound by that
agreement, or at least by the illegal parts.   I actually won a small
claims court case on that principal a few years back.

Of course, we're then back to the discussion on whether Apple's EULA clause
about running on non-Apple hardware is legal or not.

In both cases, everyone can make their own decisions as to how to deal with
the situation.

Pete
lcSQL Software 

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM, François Chaplais <
francois.chapl...@mines-paristech.fr> wrote:

> If the law says that electronically accepting a EULA is binding, that's
> the way it is
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Richmond


On 09/11/2012 11:40 PM, François Chaplais wrote:

Le 11 sept. 2012 à 21:47, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :


I also believe that its impossible to enforce post sale restrictions on use
in the EU.  You cannot sell someone a chisel, and then when he opens it,
have him discover the enforceable condition that if he uses it with a
mallet, it must be with one you make.  Again, easy to prove me wrong, just
cite a case.

Yes, one solution is don't sell your chisels separately.  That is probably
the only way to do it.  In Europe.


Almost anywhere, if you use a baseball bat to squash somebody's head, you are 
bound to trouble. Even if it is not told so in the user's manual. It called the 
law.
BTW, the same applies even if the bat is not your own.
If the law says that electronically accepting a EULA is binding, that's the way 
it is.

In France there is a general legal principle that states that nobody is 
supposed to ignore the law (understanding it is another matter unfortunately). 
For this reasons, all laws, decrees, etc are published in a free newspaper that 
anybody can consult in any city hall; you can also subscribe to to it for a 
zero fee. The same texts are now available online (at least the recent ones). I 
do not know if this is true for other countries, but it makes sense, anyway.




Yes; generally one should obey the law, or, if one disagrees with the 
law and chooses to break it

be prepared to take the legal consequences.

The question that I first raised involves all of these things; legality 
versus morality and more.


The fundamental question that nobody has answered properly is whether a 
EULA is legally

binding.

Some people on the Use-List feel that it is immoral to disobey a EULA, 
some do not (I for one),
while some feel it is illegal. Quite a few seem quite unable to 
distinguish between legality and morality.


You have, also made an interesting distinction between laws and decrees 
- the former, as far
as I understand, being contractual, and the second being imposed. Now, 
EULAs might be seen
as decretal to those living outwith the legal jurisdiction inwith they 
were drawn up, and as such,

being non-contractual are not binding.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Richmond


On 09/11/2012 10:45 PM, Peter Alcibiades wrote:

Snow Leopard still seems to be for sale from Amazon UK, and Amazon France.

What I am saying is that if its sold at retail as a separate item, and there
is no compulsion on anyone to do that of course, I believe that no EU court
will rule that to be anything but a sale.  It would be easy to prove me
wrong, just cite a case.

Peter




This is odd insofar as Apple no longer sell hardware that will work with 
Snow Leopard.


So, either it is targetted at people who want to upgrade old Apple 
machines, or what?


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread François Chaplais


Le 11 sept. 2012 à 21:47, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :

> I also believe that its impossible to enforce post sale restrictions on use
> in the EU.  You cannot sell someone a chisel, and then when he opens it,
> have him discover the enforceable condition that if he uses it with a
> mallet, it must be with one you make.  Again, easy to prove me wrong, just
> cite a case.
> 
> Yes, one solution is don't sell your chisels separately.  That is probably
> the only way to do it.  In Europe.
> 
Almost anywhere, if you use a baseball bat to squash somebody's head, you are 
bound to trouble. Even if it is not told so in the user's manual. It called the 
law. 
BTW, the same applies even if the bat is not your own.
If the law says that electronically accepting a EULA is binding, that's the way 
it is.

In France there is a general legal principle that states that nobody is 
supposed to ignore the law (understanding it is another matter unfortunately). 
For this reasons, all laws, decrees, etc are published in a free newspaper that 
anybody can consult in any city hall; you can also subscribe to to it for a 
zero fee. The same texts are now available online (at least the recent ones). I 
do not know if this is true for other countries, but it makes sense, anyway.

Best,
François


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Peter Alcibiades

I also believe that its impossible to enforce post sale restrictions on use
in the EU.  You cannot sell someone a chisel, and then when he opens it,
have him discover the enforceable condition that if he uses it with a
mallet, it must be with one you make.  Again, easy to prove me wrong, just
cite a case.

Yes, one solution is don't sell your chisels separately.  That is probably
the only way to do it.  In Europe.

Peter



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654845.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Peter Alcibiades

Snow Leopard still seems to be for sale from Amazon UK, and Amazon France.

What I am saying is that if its sold at retail as a separate item, and there
is no compulsion on anyone to do that of course, I believe that no EU court
will rule that to be anything but a sale.  It would be easy to prove me
wrong, just cite a case.

Peter



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654844.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Bob Sneidar

I can see in this specific case that it would be problematic for Apple to make 
their OS backwards compatible with everything ever produced by them. There has 
to be some kind of cutoff. I don't fault them for that. Where they draw the 
line is really not an issue of legality, but of expedience. 

If Apple wrote the OS installers in such away that it would only work with 
hardware made in the last year, it would not be very expedient for them, as not 
very many people would or could use it. That it is written in such a way that 
intel based machines that are not that old but still cannot run it has many 
people, myself included raising our eyebrows already. But if we found a way to 
install it anyway and did so, we would not be legally bound to remove it. At 
least I do not think that is what minimum requirements mean. It only means that 
Apple would not be bound to support that configuration. 

I find in many of these posts that there seems to be a confusion between an 
action that voids a contractual obligation, and one that infringes on the 
rights of the producer in a manner that can at least theoretically be 
actionable. I think this thread is really about the latter, not the former. 

Bob

On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

>> You're right, yes I'm referring to the parts about running only on Apple
>> hardware.
>> Pete
>> 
> 
> What you are saying then is Apple can't even say there is minimum system
> requirement for their OS.
> 
> There are many people who are very unhappy with Apple because they have a
> relatively modern Apple hardware yet Mount Lion doesn't run on it. This
> isn't something new to the Apple community. Hardware restrictions for OSs
> have been around for ages, in the case of Apple they just happen to add
> that it also has to be Apple branded - I think much like Microsoft specify
> Windows certified.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Bob Sneidar

Hmmm... I think they are saying that if you do those things it will void the 
warranty. That is not the same thing as saying that you have violated some 
legal obligation to USE the tool, and must forfeit your right to use it in the 
future! We really need to keep that distinction clear, or else it just muddies 
the waters. 

Bob


On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> I think it was Bob that suggested the EULA is simply a way Apple can wash
> it hands of jailbreakers and all those who want to run OS X on other
> hardware. I don't think they are really going to go chasing after any
> individuals. You can't stop people from doing anything. Another industry
> that has interesting terms of purchase are hand/power tools - in US anyway.
> I can't use pliers as a hammer, I can't use a screwdriver as a chisel, I
> can't use a power saw without safety goggles. Yes I can. No one from
> Craftsman is going to check up on me, but guaranteed, when I injure myself
> trying to use a screwdriver as a crowbar, my chances of recourse against
> Craftsman is pretty slim.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> Lynn, the problem is that (I believe) in the EU the EULA so 
> called license is actually going to be held, should it ever 
> come to court, as a sale.  And that all the post sale 
> restrictions on use will be thrown out.

Hard for me to add much to Richard's "Bring it On" ;-)

But to expand on one of his points...

Software is disappearing from traditional retail. Many applications that
used to be "packages" are becoming service components, which are directly
under the control of vendors who may not be subject to EU laws.

If the EU tried to make a pronouncement, much of the industry could step
around it, and it would severely disadvantage anyone who complies. It will
simply parallel the VAT collection problem.

Now I do know of a case that is interesting. Apparently a company that
"subscribes" its accounting packages to companies uses a proprietary format.
A Canadian company hacked the software to extract their info because they
wanted out of the subscription model. There was a lawsuit in Canada, and the
vendor lost.

What I think will happen is that instead of some monolithic ruling on EULAs
and sales, instead there will be more and more rulings in various countries
that will shape how IP is treated as a more unique system, rather than
treating IP as a sellable item.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> Oh right, the people that currently disregard the EULA are 
> going to pop over to the Apple Store and when presented with 
> two buttons, one marked
> $19.99 and the other $219.99* they are going to fork over the 
> extra $200 because these are the kind of people happy to pay 
> a premium for their hardware and software when they know the 
> $19.99 version will run just the same. Sorry, I don't think 
> you have a chance of convincing Apple of that business model.

One possibility is that, if the installer senses it isn't running on Apple
hardware, then runs in a "basic" mode until there's a paid for upgrade to
that device.

Sadly, most problems boils down to honesty in this faceless, digital age
where anonymity persists.

Look how quickly Colin's book appeared on that Chinese website. Sure, not
all who downloaded it would pay for it. But there are clearly plenty who can
afford to pay for it who will take it freely. Also, scarcity does affect
value. People who acquire the book legally should gain the value contained
vs those who do not pay the price.

Also consider the cross-borders tax situation. Many individuals in the EU
won't pony up individually what they owe their "owning" governments for VAT
on purchases they make through non-collecting venues (like US based online
shops). Those countries have a wet dream that one day US merchants will
collect those taxes for them. It is a failure to admit that the problem is
with people's honesty when there is little to no fear of being caught.

Who is responsible for the dishonesty of individuals?

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Richard Gaskin


Peter Alcibiades wrote:

Go into a store and buy OSX or Windows, you bought it.  That, I believe, is
what any EU court will rule if it ever comes to that, and that, I believe,
is why it never will come to that.


An unnameable source once told me that an Apple VP leaned over the table 
after a long discussion involving accusations that they had stolen his 
ideas and told him, "We have more lawyers than engineers.  Bring it on."


I don't know the exact ratio of lawyers to engineers, but I do know the 
lawyers they have seem quite worth their fee.


Perhaps in anticipation of the moment you describe, it's no longer 
possible to walk into a store and buy the OS.


Macs ship with OS X preinstalled, and upgrades are purchasable over the 
wire through iTunes.


It's no longer a product per se, but merely an extension of their 
support services.


Clever, that.

"Bring it on."

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread François Chaplais


Le 11 sept. 2012 à 15:56, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :

> Lynn, the problem is that (I believe) in the EU the EULA so called license is
> actually going to be held, should it ever come to court, as a sale.  And
> that all the post sale restrictions on use will be thrown out.
> 
> I know of no case, and think that is revealing.  It would be really great to
> see a test case brought against someone either for running a purchased copy
> of Windows in a VM when the license says you cannot, or installing OSX into
> a non-Apple machine.  I don't believe there are any, and the reason is, both
> companies know what would happen if they tried.
> 
> As to how Apple etc should be fair to the various factions, that is not an
> issue.  Just do not seek to enforce prohibitions incompatible with the
> jurisdictions in which you operate.
> 
> They are not.  The case is basically being conceded by default.
> 
> A car lease, if you look at it in any detail, is completely different from
> these so called software licenses.  Think about it, one off payments, whose
> books is the asset on, what is the reversion at term?
> 
> Go into a store and buy OSX or Windows, you bought it.  That, I believe, is
> what any EU court will rule if it ever comes to that, and that, I believe,
> is why it never will come to that.
> 

Jou just *do not* go to to a store and buy OSX or Windows. OX and Windows are 
NOT for sale. Put that into your brains, trollers.


> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654814.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Lynn, the problem is that (I believe) in the EU the EULA so called license is
actually going to be held, should it ever come to court, as a sale. And
that all the post sale restrictions on use will be thrown out.

I know of no case, and think that is revealing. It would be really great to
see a test case brought against someone either for running a purchased copy
of Windows in a VM when the license says you cannot, or installing OSX into
a non-Apple machine. I don't believe there are any, and the reason is, both
companies know what would happen if they tried.

As to how Apple etc should be fair to the various factions, that is not an
issue. Just do not seek to enforce prohibitions incompatible with the
jurisdictions in which you operate.

They are not. The case is basically being conceded by default.

A car lease, if you look at it in any detail, is completely different from
these so called software licenses. Think about it, one off payments, whose
books is the asset on, what is the reversion at term?

Go into a store and buy OSX or Windows, you bought it. That, I believe, is
what any EU court will rule if it ever comes to that, and that, I believe,
is why it never will come to that.

--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654814.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-11 Thread Roger Eller

In this age of digital perfection, legislation as well as digital coding
are applied to personal, private use copies of over-the-air music or media.
 Certain devices which are authorized for making personal, non-commercial
copies have already included royalties in the device cost, which goes
directly to the recording industry, according to what I read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Regarding your comment "and it was dishonest back then", yes it was
dishonest to make bootleg CDs and profit from selling them.  That has not
changed.  A personal one-off copy from over-the-air which may include the
ending of a commercial, or the radio station host talking through the
beginning of a song; it's not a copy worth paying for, but it does offer
the listener a chance to replay it and decide if they wish to purchase it
later.

I won't even entertain a response to your "these are the kind of people"
remark.  People would definitely pay $200+ for a good OS, even when a
$19.99 version exists for Apple hardware owners.  It is the same as a
business paying for the higher priced LiveCode membership even though less
expensive options exist.  The user just needs to understand why the price
is different and what is or is not included.

For those who want to build a custom mac and use OS X, today the only
option is "without support" from Apple, and that's ok because in some ways,
the community support is better.

~Roger

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Roger Eller wrote:
>
> > There are car stereos that have a record button just like the cassette
> > recorders of the past.  Is it dishonest to press record and get a
> > less-than-perfect mp3 recording that is perfectly acceptable to the
> > listener (for free)?  I don't think so.
>
> Just as dishonest as sitting down in a cinema and pressing record on your
> camcorder.
>
> As for less than perfect, in today's age of Digital broadcasters the
> version you get is a whole heap better than when it was done with a
> cassette recorder. And it was dishonest back then.
>
> > Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Apple (as a business) charging a
> > higher price for their OS for use on non-Apple hardware.  I would gladly
> > pay Windows prices, but for the increased cost, I would expect *some*
> level
> > of support.
>
> Oh right, the people that currently disregard the EULA are going to pop
> over to the Apple Store and when presented with two buttons, one marked
> $19.99 and the other $219.99* they are going to fork over the extra $200
> because these are the kind of people happy to pay a premium for their
> hardware and software when they know the $19.99 version will run just the
> same. Sorry, I don't think you have a chance of convincing Apple of that
> business model.
>
> Actually the Windows Store says Ultimate 'starts at $219.99' so I don't
> know it may be even more expensive if you include some of the features like
> 'sharing photos and music' and 'creating a home network' and 'added
> security'. How novel.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Kay C Lan

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Roger Eller
wrote:

> There are car stereos that have a record button just like the cassette
> recorders of the past.  Is it dishonest to press record and get a
> less-than-perfect mp3 recording that is perfectly acceptable to the
> listener (for free)?  I don't think so.
>

Just as dishonest as sitting down in a cinema and pressing record on your
camcorder.

As for less than perfect, in today's age of Digital broadcasters the
version you get is a whole heap better than when it was done with a
cassette recorder. And it was dishonest back then.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Apple (as a business) charging a
> higher price for their OS for use on non-Apple hardware.  I would gladly
> pay Windows prices, but for the increased cost, I would expect *some* level
> of support.
>

Oh right, the people that currently disregard the EULA are going to pop
over to the Apple Store and when presented with two buttons, one marked
$19.99 and the other $219.99* they are going to fork over the extra $200
because these are the kind of people happy to pay a premium for their
hardware and software when they know the $19.99 version will run just the
same. Sorry, I don't think you have a chance of convincing Apple of that
business model.

Actually the Windows Store says Ultimate 'starts at $219.99' so I don't
know it may be even more expensive if you include some of the features like
'sharing photos and music' and 'creating a home network' and 'added
security'. How novel.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Roger Eller

There are car stereos that have a record button just like the cassette
recorders of the past.  Is it dishonest to press record and get a
less-than-perfect mp3 recording that is perfectly acceptable to the
listener (for free)?  I don't think so.  If I really loove the song,
I'll buy a CD rather than download from the internet from a shady source.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Apple (as a business) charging a
higher price for their OS for use on non-Apple hardware.  I would gladly
pay Windows prices, but for the increased cost, I would expect *some* level
of support.  I would be just as content with the cheap version and
*no*support, because the community would provide all that is needed.
They are
good people, much like the users on this list.

This podcast is an eye-opener (ear, perhaps) for those who still believe
hackintosh people are thieves.  No, they just want a product they are happy
with, and sometimes the cookie-cutter off-the-shelf stuff (even from Apple)
just isn't good enough for their dream machine.

http://tinyurl.com/ch6ugbt

~Roger

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Peter Haworth wrote:
>
> > You're right, yes I'm referring to the parts about running only on Apple
> > hardware.
> > Pete
>
> Musicians sell their music. I can listen to it for free on the radio. I can
> download it for free off the Internet. The extension that if I download it
> off the Internet for free and listen to it just like I was listen to the
> radio might seem to be logical and valid, but it doesn't change the fact
> that to me (but not to millions of others) it is dishonest.
>
> Please come up with an EULA that is supposedly fair for both Apple hardware
> owners and non-Apple hardware owners and doesn't turn into a can of worms
> for Apple. From my view of the Apple Forums, Apple is a long way off
> Steve's dream of seamless integration of hardware and software. There are
> far too many people out there with Apple hardware with OS issues. Screw the
> hackintosh crowd.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Kay C Lan

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Peter Haworth  wrote:

> You're right, yes I'm referring to the parts about running only on Apple
> hardware.
> Pete
>

What you are saying then is Apple can't even say there is minimum system
requirement for their OS.

There are many people who are very unhappy with Apple because they have a
relatively modern Apple hardware yet Mount Lion doesn't run on it. This
isn't something new to the Apple community. Hardware restrictions for OSs
have been around for ages, in the case of Apple they just happen to add
that it also has to be Apple branded - I think much like Microsoft specify
Windows certified.

Whilst I acknowledge that Apple's choice of words in it's EULA is purely
business orientated, the fact remains that millions of people follow it to
the letter, and your choice to follow it or not is about honesty.

I'm just wondering, if you don't think in the EU Apple can license it's
software, but you actually own because it quacks like a duck, are you then
suggesting that Runrev's new monthly licensing option really is a cheap way
to go because once you've bought it, you own it and therefore Runrev must
allow you to use it just like their perpetual licence??? Hmm just wondering?

Musicians sell their music. I can listen to it for free on the radio. I can
download it for free off the Internet. The extension that if I download it
off the Internet for free and listen to it just like I was listen to the
radio might seem to be logical and valid, but it doesn't change the fact
that to me (but not to millions of others) it is dishonest.

I think Lynn's example is an excellent one.

I think it was Bob that suggested the EULA is simply a way Apple can wash
it hands of jailbreakers and all those who want to run OS X on other
hardware. I don't think they are really going to go chasing after any
individuals. You can't stop people from doing anything. Another industry
that has interesting terms of purchase are hand/power tools - in US anyway.
I can't use pliers as a hammer, I can't use a screwdriver as a chisel, I
can't use a power saw without safety goggles. Yes I can. No one from
Craftsman is going to check up on me, but guaranteed, when I injure myself
trying to use a screwdriver as a crowbar, my chances of recourse against
Craftsman is pretty slim.

Let me put this out there, if Apple were to remove that requirement, then
wouldn't that mean that Apple would have to then treat every customer the
same? All the hackintosh crowd would be entitled to time with Apple
support. Oh no you say, you wouldn't expect that, maybe not you but
everyone else would. Or maybe they could write into their EULA that only
Apple hardware owners were entitled to Apple support. Then there would be
an outcry, wait a minute I paid exactly the same as the Apple fan boy for
ML so why shouldn't I be treated the same?

Please come up with an EULA that is supposedly fair for both Apple hardware
owners and non-Apple hardware owners and doesn't turn into a can of worms
for Apple. From my view of the Apple Forums, Apple is a long way off
Steve's dream of seamless integration of hardware and software. There are
far too many people out there with Apple hardware with OS issues. Screw the
hackintosh crowd.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> Or rather parts of it may be unenforceable. I don't think the 
> whole becomes void if some part is found to be non-binding. 

Usually agreements have some statement that says "If any part of this
agreement is found to be unenforceable, it shall not void the entire
agreement unless X occurs; otherwise, this agreement reforms based on Y or
the unenforceable portion is treated as if it isnt present".

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> I have no problem with Apple "behaving like a business", they 
> have a responsibility to their shreholders to do so, nor 
> would I expect them to provide any support if I broke their 
> EULA terms, nor do I blame them for trying to create a 
> closed, sanitized environment for their software to make 
> support easier.  I like Apple hardware and software, use it 
> as my main platform for programming and personal use.  I just 
> happen to believe their EULA is legally unenforceable.

Opinions don't matter though. Actions matter. Apple could be in the right,
or not. Apple can also spend not a lot of money to intimidate you into
giving up on the idea of being right.

IP law is a mess, and enforcement is one part iron fist (# of lawyers + $ =
win) to two parts wet noodle (no way to protect across borders or against
invisible small fry violators who bit torrent your stuff). The only thing
you can do is to claim as much as you can, and hope you are able to enforce
what you need to enforce.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Haworth

Off the original topic but taht's interesting.  It seems common practice
among dentists to charge for a patient to get their records if they move to
another dentist, but sounds like I could tell them I want to copy them
myself.
Pete
lcSQL Software 

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Timothy Miller <
gand...@doctortimothymiller.com> wrote:

> In theory, the patient has the right to see the records, copy them, or
> send copies to others.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Haworth

You're right, yes I'm referring to the parts about running only on Apple
hardware.
Pete
lcSQL Software 



On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bob Sneidar  wrote:

> Or rather parts of it may be unenforceable. I don't think the whole
> becomes void if some part is found to be non-binding.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Peter Haworth wrote:
>
> > I like Apple hardware and software, use it as my main
> > platform for programming and personal use.  I just happen to believe
> their
> > EULA is legally unenforceable.
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Timothy Miller

An analogous situation exists with medical records. The doctor "owns" the 
physical record. The patient, in theory, owns and controls the information 
contained therein.

In theory, when signing a HIPAA release, or other release of information, the 
patient authorizes the doctor to release the information to certain parties, 
but not to others. In theory, these authorizations can be modified or withdrawn 
by the patient at any time. In theory, the patient has the right to see the 
records, copy them, or send copies to others.

A HIPAA release is rather like a EULA, it seems.

In practice, the rules are broken by doctors about as often as they are 
honored, patients rarely understand the rules, nor care. Litigation occurs 
occasionally, when someone screws up, someone complains, someone is harmed, or 
a patient gets litigious, often inspired by an attorney who sees dollar signs.

Sorta like EULAs, it seems.

Cheers,

(Doctor) Timothy Miller

On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> Good point Mark.
> 
> Looking at my Snow Leopard EULA (as it differs from current EULAs) it says:
> 
> 1 General. The software... are licensed, not sold, to you... You own the
> media on which the Apple Software is recorded...
> 
> So I guess Richmond you are free to use the DVD for lighting a fire,
> throwing at the cat, whilst either in the bath or standing on your head ;-)

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Or rather parts of it may be unenforceable. I don't think the whole becomes 
void if some part is found to be non-binding. 

Bob

On Sep 10, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Peter Haworth wrote:

> I like Apple hardware and software, use it as my main
> platform for programming and personal use.  I just happen to believe their
> EULA is legally unenforceable.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Haworth

Yes, I thought of that analogy.  The problem is, as others have said on
this thread, I don't believe Apple's EULA is legal whereas car lease
conditions are.

It's not a case of morality, piracy, honesty or any other human traits that
have been mentioned during this thread.  I simply do not believe their EULA
is legal which puts Apple in the wrong, not me.  Others have a different
opinion and will stick to the EULA.  That's fine, it's just a different
opinion

I have no problem with Apple "behaving like a business", they have a
responsibility to their shreholders to do so, nor would I expect them to
provide any support if I broke their EULA terms, nor do I blame them for
trying to create a closed, sanitized environment for their software to make
support easier.  I like Apple hardware and software, use it as my main
platform for programming and personal use.  I just happen to believe their
EULA is legally unenforceable.

Pete
lcSQL Software 

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Lynn Fredricks <
lfredri...@proactive-intl.com> wrote:

> > It's unclear to me why the fact that I buy a license to use
> > software versus owning the actual software itself has any
> > effect on what I choose to do with it.  Either way, I pay
> > money to Apple to be able to use it.  That's a different
> > issue than what the EULA says regarding not using it on
> > non-Apple hardware of course but interesting nevertheless.
>
> A good "real world" parallel is buying a car vs leasing it. Your lease can
> forbid all sorts of activities, because at the end of the day, you don't
> own
> the car.
>
> You don't buy a license. You pay money to be permitted to use under
> specific
> terms granted. Software is intellectual property.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lynn Fredricks
> President
> Paradigma Software
> http://www.paradigmasoft.com
>
> Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

To be fair, I don't think anyone is saying that we can do whatever we want with 
what we buy, and still expect the manufacturer to honor it's warranty! No one 
here is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is that if I want to put my 
iPhone in a blender to see if it will blend, I damn well can, and no one, not 
even Apple, can tell me I can't. What people get upset about is having to agree 
that the manufacturer can reach into our lives and limit, alter or nullify the 
thing we paid for without any recourse on our part, in order to use the thing. 

In the US the courts decided that Apple can void a warranty if someone 
jailbreaks one of their devices, but they cannot restrict people from actually 
jailbreaking the device! I agree I ought not be permitted to take the software 
they wrote and copy it to something else (supposing it would work). I do NOT 
agree however that I should be prevented from putting whatever software I want 
on a device I paid money for! But such is the state of affairs today, and if I 
want to use their device, I have to click OK. 

The real point to copyrights and patents is to keep people from taking what 
someone else produced and profiting from it without some agreement being struck 
with the person who created it. If people didn't do such things, if they all 
honored each other's natural rights of property as a matter of course, I 
suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

I'm not implying anything is going to change, I just think it is useful for all 
of us to remember why such things are necessary, and why lawyers will always 
exist in this age of man. 

Bob

On Sep 9, 2012, at 7:30 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> Buy a car and use it to carry goats was mentioned. Really? Try buying a
> brand new car, with a 200 bhp naturally aspirated engine, then on day 2 rip
> out the induction system, add a whopping great Garrett turbo, re-chip the
> Electronic Engine Management system so you get 400 bhp at the rear wheels
> and 1 month down the track when you've blown the engine see how receptive
> the Dealer is to repairing it under warranty.
> 
> Not a fair comparison. Buy a sedan, rip out the backseats, remove the
> protrusion bars that separate the boot from the passenger compartment, also
> the rear seatbelts and airbags so you can fit more goats in the car and
> when you have an accident and are severely injured by a flying goat, see
> how receptive your Insurance company is to paying your claim.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

While I am not a big fan of EULA's, there mere existence is a testament to how 
people will, if they are allowed, take something they never paid for, and use 
it, giving what they took to everyone they know, or don't know, often for their 
own gain, whether in currency or for accolade. 

EULA's are a way of stating their legal position, so that if it ever came down 
to it where someone was doing them real damage, they could take legal action. 
In fact, I view all contracts in this day and age, not as a means to control 
human behavior, but as a way to reserve the right for the author/owner to 
protect their property. I guess you could boil it all down to the statement, 
"We reserve the right to engage in legal recourse, should anyone use what we 
sold them in a manner they did not agree to." 

I also think EULA's are so incredibly severe as a result of today's lawyers 
amazing capacity for finding the least little loophole in the specific wording 
of a contract so as to convince a judge or panel that the contract does not in 
fact say what it seems to be saying. 

Bob

On Sep 9, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Ken Corey wrote:

> We all know companies make the T's & C's to suit themselves as much as 
> possible, giving as little as possible while gaining as much as possible.
> 
> I feel that EULAs, copyright and patent laws have gone well beyond too far. 
> They have gone so far that corporations are far more important than people, 
> than facts, than truth (not capitalised).  Their lawyers rewrite history, 
> twist laws, and jeopardise markets.
> 
> They are morally indefensible in this day where we must use technology to get 
> things done.
> 
> Personally, I don't pay too awful much attention to EULAs. I prefer common 
> sense. Personal use, don't destroy other's businesses.  I do wish others felt 
> the same way.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

I find it no end of a marvel that any of this works at all! Let's look at what 
our "data" really is: We coat some metal discs with some form if oxide (read 
that "rust") and then spin it real fast while several magnets turn on and off 
at exactly the right instant, real fast. And how do we put this data to work, 
so we can interpret and use it? Well we force electricity through 
microscopically thin wafers of silicone at precisely the right instances in 
time. There are many billions of these instances of time each second, and they 
have to be right 99.98% of the time, and yes I just pulled that percentage 
out of the air. But you get the point. 

Bob

On Sep 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Given the combinatorial explosion of possible components, it's quite a marvel 
> that Linux installs on a majority of computers flawlessly.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Lynn Fredricks

> It's unclear to me why the fact that I buy a license to use 
> software versus owning the actual software itself has any 
> effect on what I choose to do with it.  Either way, I pay 
> money to Apple to be able to use it.  That's a different 
> issue than what the EULA says regarding not using it on 
> non-Apple hardware of course but interesting nevertheless.

A good "real world" parallel is buying a car vs leasing it. Your lease can
forbid all sorts of activities, because at the end of the day, you don't own
the car.

You don't buy a license. You pay money to be permitted to use under specific
terms granted. Software is intellectual property.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-10 Thread Peter Alcibiades

Its unclear because it is most likely that an EU court, if it ever came to
that, would decide that it was a purchase and not a license.  Because if it
walks and quacks like a duck

Or as Lincoln said, if a tail is a leg how many legs does a dog have?  Four,
because a tail is not a leg.

Peter


Warren Samples wrote
> 
> 
> ..Why is it unclear? Because you don't understand it or because you
> don't 
> like it? You are licensed to use the software but only so long as you 
> are using it according to the terms under which Apple (in this example) 
> agrees to make it available to you. Your license ends when you use the 
> software outside those terms. Deciding that the terms don't suit you 
> isn't license to ignore them. Your legal option is to find some other 
> software with terms you like better or that fit your particular scenario 
> better.
> 
> Warren
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@.runrev
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 




--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654746.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

I wish somebody would tell Netflix this!  I would live in Ubuntu if I could
have my media too.  I'm glad Android finally got it.

~Roger

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Want the security of a Unix-like OS with a modern UI, but one that can run
> on any hardware you choose with infinite configurability?
>
> Apple says, "Use Ubuntu".
>
> ;)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


Roger Eller wrote:

> If a technically skilled user wants to build their own system and buy 
OS X

> for it, it should be allowed.  A PC owner can continue to use most system
> components for ages, and just change out the parts as they break (or
> upgrade on occasion).  Why can't a G5 owner take out the motherboard and
> install an i7 on an intel-based motherboard and then install OS X?

At that point it's time to Think REALLY Different:

Want the security of a Unix-like OS with a modern UI, but one that can 
run on any hardware you choose with infinite configurability?


Apple says, "Use Ubuntu".

;)

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Most users who are capable of doing it wouldn't even want Apple support.
 Currently, it is supported by like-minded geeks who just love to tinker.
It's a community much like the Linux crowd.  There have even been Ethernet
drivers ported from Linux to help out systems that were "almost" fully
compatible.  Again, there are recipes for systems to "just work", primarily
just following Apples lead.

~Roger

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> On 9/9/12 11:01 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
>
>> Why can't a G5 owner take out the motherboard and
>> install an i7 on an intel-based motherboard and then install OS X?  The
>> machine would still be Apple-branded, still able to connect to iTunes,
>> still can purchase media and books, etc. But nooo!  You have to buy an
>> entirely new system just to buy stuff.
>>
>
> Same thing; it would introduce support issues that Apple doesn't want to
> deal with.
>
> I notice that Apple isn't coming after people who do try to run OS X on
> other hardware. They just won't support it.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread J. Landman Gay


On 9/9/12 11:01 PM, Roger Eller wrote:

Why can't a G5 owner take out the motherboard and
install an i7 on an intel-based motherboard and then install OS X?  The
machine would still be Apple-branded, still able to connect to iTunes,
still can purchase media and books, etc. But nooo!  You have to buy an
entirely new system just to buy stuff.


Same thing; it would introduce support issues that Apple doesn't want to 
deal with.


I notice that Apple isn't coming after people who do try to run OS X on 
other hardware. They just won't support it.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

As Richard mentioned earlier, the underdog tag was a fair description of
Apples humble beginnings, but this is currently FAR from the case.  I
believe the real underdogs today are just regular people (techie people)
who would like to run a great OS on hardware they can hand pick for
themselves.  It is not a technical issue because indeed it does "just work"
if the recipe of hardware chipsets matches what Apple puts into their
hardware.  I'm sure the small fraction of OS X fans who want to run it on
PC hardware is rather small, but they still want to be Apple "software
customers".  It's not about honesty, it's about economy.

If a technically skilled user wants to build their own system and buy OS X
for it, it should be allowed.  A PC owner can continue to use most system
components for ages, and just change out the parts as they break (or
upgrade on occasion).  Why can't a G5 owner take out the motherboard and
install an i7 on an intel-based motherboard and then install OS X?  The
machine would still be Apple-branded, still able to connect to iTunes,
still can purchase media and books, etc. But nooo!  You have to buy an
entirely new system just to buy stuff.  I realize this is a hopeless
debate, and only Apple can change the policies of Apple.

Which is the better demonstration of recycling an old Mac?
http://static.flickr.com/15/18743082_736390eb05.jpg
or
http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co.uk/Resources/dscf0006.jpeg

Sorry, I couldn't find one with goats inside.  ;-p

~Roger

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Kay C Lan wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> > By retaining control of both software and hardware, it "just works" -- at
> > least, most of the time.
>
> Richmond started with referring to a book and the fact that he can do
> anything he likes with it. Really?
>
> Buy a car and use it to carry goats was mentioned. Really?
>
> To me, this is as Richard eluded to, a simple case of honesty, and not far
> removed from the Piracy thread.
>
> Doesn't seem to have anything to do with fairness, logic, open source,
> politics, or business, it seems to be a simple test of honesty.
>
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread Kay C Lan

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> By retaining control of both software and hardware, it "just works" -- at
> least, most of the time.
>

I think this is it in a nutshell. Although Apple has definitely used the
'underdog'  tag, from my reading of the 'Steve Jobs' book, if I had to
condense it all down to a couple of words it would be that Steve was
absolutely convinced that the best computing experience could ONLY be
achieved by controlling both hardware and software manufacture. The EULA
simply reiterates that. You'll now when Steve has finally left Apple when
that EULA changes.

And really, what is the big deal? And is it any different than any other
industry/sector?

Richmond started with referring to a book and the fact that he can do
anything he likes with it. Really? Isn't this just another case of you own
the paper, the physical object, but not the software - the story. Try
buying in a Harry Potter book then try to make money with your own book
where the word Harry is simply replaced with Gary.

Buy a car and use it to carry goats was mentioned. Really? Try buying a
brand new car, with a 200 bhp naturally aspirated engine, then on day 2 rip
out the induction system, add a whopping great Garrett turbo, re-chip the
Electronic Engine Management system so you get 400 bhp at the rear wheels
and 1 month down the track when you've blown the engine see how receptive
the Dealer is to repairing it under warranty.

Not a fair comparison. Buy a sedan, rip out the backseats, remove the
protrusion bars that separate the boot from the passenger compartment, also
the rear seatbelts and airbags so you can fit more goats in the car and
when you have an accident and are severely injured by a flying goat, see
how receptive your Insurance company is to paying your claim.

To me, this is as Richard eluded to, a simple case of honesty, and not far
removed from the Piracy thread.

A musician wants you to pay for music but it's available elsewhere for
free, which do you choose?

To determine your premium the Car insurance company wants to know if anyone
under the age of 25 will be driving your car. You tick No. When your 21 yr
old daughter has a minor dingle who do you say was driving the car?

A software vendor wants you to install it's software on one computer only,
how many do you install it on?

A software vendor limits it's family license to 5 computers. There are 6 in
your family, how many computers do you install it on?

A computer company only wants you to run it's software on it's hardware.
What do you choose?

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with fairness, logic, open source,
politics, or business, it seems to be a simple test of honesty.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Ken Corey  wrote:
> We all know companies make the T's & C's to suit themselves as much as
> possible, giving as little as possible while gaining as much as possible.

While we're at it:
http://search.dilbert.com/search?w=shrinkwrap&x=0&y=0



-- 
The Hawkins Law Firm
Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
hawkinslawf...@gmail.com
3025 S. Maryland Parkway
Suite A
Las Vegas, NV  89109
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread Ken Corey

We all know companies make the T's & C's to suit themselves as much as 
possible, giving as little as possible while gaining as much as possible.


I feel that EULAs, copyright and patent laws have gone well beyond too 
far. They have gone so far that corporations are far more important than 
people, than facts, than truth (not capitalised).  Their lawyers rewrite 
history, twist laws, and jeopardise markets.


They are morally indefensible in this day where we must use technology 
to get things done.


Personally, I don't pay too awful much attention to EULAs. I prefer 
common sense. Personal use, don't destroy other's businesses.  I do wish 
others felt the same way.


The thing that worries me the most here is that when every new medium 
came along (printed sheet music, player pianos, radio, TV, cassette 
tapes, fax machines, telephones, computers, internet) the entrenched 
media moguls have railed against the tech, and tried to protect their world.


Every time before this, they've been utterly defeated by reality and 
common sense.


This time, I'm afraid they're winning.  Closed shops, licensed software, 
UEFI limited hardware, hardware you can't open, copyright extended 
beyond all reason, IP used as a weapon of business.


Pretty soon we'll all have to pay Apple royalty for breathing iAir.

Feh.

I think the only thing keeping the corporates honest is Linux in all its 
forms.  Without Linux, there'd be no Android and Apple would well and 
truly own the tech world. *shiver*


Once Linux is killed off, I'm going to start growing turnips.

-Ken

On 07/09/2012 19:55, Richmond wrote:

I am asking this question for a number of reasons:

1. If I buy a book I can, if I want, use it for lighting a fire,
throwing at the cat, and so on. As the book
 is my property I can do what I like with it. The intellectual
property contained within the book is,
 generally, restricted by copyright saying whether I can copy bits
of it, resell it, lend it to friends,
 lend it while charging a fee for its use, and so on. However, the
copyright restrictions do not tell me
 where I can read the book (in the bath?) or how (standing on my
head?).

2. I am running Mac Snow Leopard in VMplayer on Non-Apple hardware.

Before I continue, I should point out that as I own a physical install
disk for Mac OS Snow Leopard
I don't feel MORALLY wrong running the software it contains in VMplayer.
I am running software I own
in one instance and do not feel that because I bought Ferrari hubcaps
for my Lada I should be forced
to buy a Ferrari.

3. Other people on the Use-List must face similar questions.

4. I really wonder if this belongs in the same category as the previous
set of postings about
 software piracy - I don't feel it does.

A. How legally binding is a EULA?

B. I have connected to Apple via software upgrade, so, one assumes, they
are well aware that at
 least one person "out there" is violating the EULA.

C. Anybody can purchase software online or in a shop without background
checks to see whether
 one has the necessary hardware to keep to the EULA.

Of course this can extend to Livecode, and all the products we folk are
doing our best to produce
with it.

There are also some 'funny' rumours flying about that Microsoft are
doing some deals with PC makers that will lock the machines in some way
so that they will only function with Microsoft Operating Systems, rather
than Linux, UNIX, Haiku and so on.

Richmond.




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Richmond  wrote:
> Funny how Linux distros don't seem to get in "the mess" regardless.

Why, I once even had a thinkpad for which Linux power management
worked.  Well, sort of . . . .

An OS licensed only for apple branded hardware means that Apple
doesn't have to deal with supporting all the other hardware, almost
all of which is significantly lower quality than their own.

-- 
The Hawkins Law Firm
Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
hawkinslawf...@gmail.com
3025 S. Maryland Parkway
Suite A
Las Vegas, NV  89109

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


Warren Samples wrote:

Richmond, you must be aware that there are all kinds of hardware
compatibility issues one has to consider when contemplating putting
Linux on any computer.


Very true, Linux has to work harder than OS X or Windows because very 
few hardware vendors design their systems specifically for it.


Ironically, the most challenging OS install I ever attempted was trying 
to load a stock off-the-shelf copy of Vista onto a Dell Vostro 1400.


That Vostro originally shipped with Vista, but I bought it second-hand 
and the seller didn't have the restore disk.


Ah, the restore disk.  It's so easy to forget that manufacturers preload 
their restore disks with all the special drivers their components will 
need.


I've come to find that I'm not alone in having issues trying to use a 
stock Win CD on a PC.  Without the special drivers for that particular 
machine, it's a real gamble.


Given the combinatorial explosion of possible components, it's quite a 
marvel that Linux installs on a majority of computers flawlessly.


Even if some systems may require an additional download of a driver, 
it's safe to say that at least Ubuntu, Mint, and other major distros run 
out of the box on a much wider range of hardware than either OS X or 
Windows.




It is also true that some of these issues have
resulted in hostility directed at hardware vendors who aren't seen as
friendly enough to the open-source community.


Hostility is of course inappropriate, but by no means OS-specific. 
Those of us who've been with the Mac for decades remember how vendors 
who stopped supporting Mac in the '90s were treated.  Fanboys come in 
all stripes.


Fortunately the only widespread disappointment with hardware in Linux 
lately has been with NVidia's Optimus technology, and at along last 
they've decided to support that on Linux:



Given the prevalence of Optimus on modern PCs, now that NVidia is 
supporting it on Linux we can expect the vendor hostility count to drop 
by more than half. :)


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Richard Gaskin
 wrote:
> I would venture to guess that Apple's justification for not allowing
> purchasers of OS X to run it on hardware of their own choice is that the
> price of the Apple-branded computer effectively subsidizes part of the cost
> of the OS.

"part" ?

Apple is charging less for Lion and Mountain lion than MS did for DOS
thirty years ago.

Apple is a hardware company, and writes the software to make their
hardware useful.  They were criticized for this unwise model that
would drive them to bankruptcy while MS took over the world over their
unwillingness to release it for standard PC hardware . . .

Anyway, Apple isn't so much charging for the OS as it is collecting
something to cover the tech support calls for its installation.

-- 
The Hawkins Law Firm
Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
hawkinslawf...@gmail.com
3025 S. Maryland Parkway
Suite A
Las Vegas, NV  89109

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Richmond  wrote:
> What me? read a EULA? Unfortunately I'm not that wierd, at least in that
> respect I am like
> other people: I mumble "Yeah, whatever" and hit the ACCEPT button.

As an attorney, I've written a simple program to take an EULA as an
input and return an english translation.

on interpretEULA theLicenseTerms
return "You Lose!"
end interpretEULA


-- 
The Hawkins Law Firm
Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
hawkinslawf...@gmail.com
3025 S. Maryland Parkway
Suite A
Las Vegas, NV  89109

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread Warren Samples


On 09/09/2012 12:45 PM, Richmond wrote:

I'm sure there are many factors involved, but I think one of the
primary reasons Apple doesn't want the OS used on other hardware is to
avoid the mess that Microsoft got themselves into by licensing to any
PC distributor. By retaining control of both software and hardware, it
"just works" -- at least, most of the time.



Funny how Linux distros don't seem to get in "the mess" regardless.



Richmond, you must be aware that there are all kinds of hardware 
compatibility issues one has to consider when contemplating putting 
Linux on any computer. It is also true that some of these issues have 
resulted in hostility directed at hardware vendors who aren't seen as 
friendly enough to the open-source community.


Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread Richmond


On 09/09/2012 08:40 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

On 9/9/12 9:31 AM, Colin Holgate wrote:


About the $20 to upgrade to Mountain Lion, I suspect that doesn't
fully pay for the development of OSX, and that's with Apple just
having to support a handful of computers. Imaging their costs if they
had to support every conceivable PC configuration.


I'm sure there are many factors involved, but I think one of the 
primary reasons Apple doesn't want the OS used on other hardware is to 
avoid the mess that Microsoft got themselves into by licensing to any 
PC distributor. By retaining control of both software and hardware, it 
"just works" -- at least, most of the time.




Funny how Linux distros don't seem to get in "the mess" regardless.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread J. Landman Gay


On 9/9/12 9:31 AM, Colin Holgate wrote:


About the $20 to upgrade to Mountain Lion, I suspect that doesn't
fully pay for the development of OSX, and that's with Apple just
having to support a handful of computers. Imaging their costs if they
had to support every conceivable PC configuration.


I'm sure there are many factors involved, but I think one of the primary 
reasons Apple doesn't want the OS used on other hardware is to avoid the 
mess that Microsoft got themselves into by licensing to any PC 
distributor. By retaining control of both software and hardware, it 
"just works" -- at least, most of the time.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


Roger Eller wrote:


A great deal of design consideration (on the inside) makes this case very
desirable for gamers, and other high-end computer enthusiasts that build
their own tech, regardless of what OS it will contain.  The familiar
MacPro-like handles make it desirable on the outside.  It's not a direct
copy because they are at an angle, and they flex for shock absorption.  I
haven't built a machine in years, but this new $80 case makes me want to.
 Skip the first 2 minutes (the unboxing), to see this really nice PC case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYatxJzaBI


The handles certainly make it a good choice for gamers on the go, but 
the that sort of handle design is not without criticism (warning: video 
is NSFW):



If I was looking for a portable box in a Mini-ITX form factor, I think 
I'd probably go with this one since its top-and-center handle makes it 
clear which way is up:



Personally, I'm trying to justify adding a new workstation to my setup 
so I can use this unique case from Lian Li:



--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Colin Holgate wrote:

> I actually don't mind the fact that Apple runs itself as if it was
> a business.

As a shareholder I rather like it.

As a customer I use the dividends to shop at NewEgg and build my own 
systems. ;)

Of course I honor the Apple EULA, so the more I learn about hardware and 
enjoy choosing it myself, I heed Apple's guidance to use Ubuntu.

> About the $20 to upgrade to Mountain Lion, I suspect that doesn't
> fully pay for the development of OSX, and that's with Apple just
> having to support a handful of computers. Imaging their costs if
> they had to support every conceivable PC configuration.

I think more the former than the latter.  Support queues could be 
filtered by requiring a valid Mac serial number, just as they've always 
done to determine if the caller is still eligible for support.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality


Roger Eller wrote:

'Apple branded'... that is their hang up.  They want to keep their users
believing they are special because they own an Apple product.  Well, once
everybody has an iPhone, or an iPad, who's special then?  It's like saying
"I own a TV".  Uh, ok.


We're way OT here, but that won't stop me from noting that you've just 
described very succinctly Apple's biggest challenge today:


For more than 30 years they've achieved everything they have on an 
underdog story.  Originally the enemy was Big Blue, later Microsoft, but 
always Apple was the little guy up against the big guns, and if you the 
customer were just willing to "Think Different(R)" you could join the 
revolution and change the world.


Well, the world has indeed changed.

Apple is now one of the largest and post powerful multinational giants 
on earth.


They're big enough to lock up whole fabrication sectors, able to change 
the global price of commodity components with a single phone call, 
almost single-handedly defining the value of NASDAQ.


Now that they've gone from underdog to top dog, the story that brought 
them here is completely irrelevant to their current position on the 
world stage.


They need a new story, one that will engage the heats and minds of the 
market as effectively as the one that brought them here, but one that's 
relevant to their new role as global giant.  What will it be?


I think they're still adjusting to their new position of power.  It'll 
be interesting to see how this plays out over the next couple years.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Shawn Blc wrote:

On Saturday, September 8, 2012, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> I would venture to guess that Apple's justification for not allowing
>> purchasers of OS X to run it on hardware of their own choice is that
>> the price of the Apple-branded computer effectively subsidizes part
>> of the cost of the OS.
>
> BS.  Nowadays there's no need to subsidize a product
> (software/hardware).
> Companies only do it to draw attention and potential gain.

I suppose that's a possibility, and I can't claim to have sufficient 
knowledge of Apple's internal costs to be able to say.

But in all fairness, the price of OS X is a fraction of the price of 
Windows.

Given that Microsoft is able to amortize the R&D and marketing costs of 
Windows across some 87% of computers while Apple must amortize across 
only ~10%, and that Apple has higher margins than Microsoft, if the 
purchase price of the OS alone were to be seen as fully covering the 
vendor's costs we would expect Apple to charge many times more for its 
OS products than Microsoft does.

Most of Apple's Mac money comes from markup on hardware.  The average 
price of a Mac is roughly double that of a PC*.  Sure, they spend a lot 
on expensive fabrication for their laptop cases, but most of the 
internals are off-the-shelf components, the same CPUs, GPUs, RAM, audio 
and network chipsets, etc. that other PC vendors use.  Even with their 
expensive fabrication, their price on the hardware provides them with 
the highest margins in the industry by far.

Given that they make so much money on hardware markup and price their OS 
so much lower than Microsoft who depends on OS sales alone, it seems 
reasonable to suggest that some of the unusually high hardware revenue 
is offsetting the unusually low OS revenue.

If anyone here has had the time to go through the shareholder details 
Apple provides which may suggest otherwise, I'd be interested in any 
data which shows that this view is incorrect.  It may well be, it's just 
a hunch, but from what little I know it doesn't seem particularly 
outlandish.

* 

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

Agreed.  Apple should run itself as a business in order to BE in business.
 It's a company-eat-company world, and business trade-marks/branding are
acquired every day.  Therefore the Apple brand could 'continue to exist'
even if merged with IBM (unlikely today).  One of the largest on-line PC
parts companies - TigerDirect, a few years ago acquired CompUSA.  The
CompUSA name is on the front of the store, but the store content is now
just a showroom for the TigerDirect on-line catalog.  So, a merged Apple
wouldn't be quite the same anymore, I would imagine.

I tend to pull for the underdog, incase you guys haven't noticed.  :-)
 After all, I was once an Amiga fan-boy "based on its merits".  Microsoft
Windows was/is/probably will continue to be a standard for a long time.  If
Apple would open up OS X to other hardware, this could change.  I don't
mind OS X becoming simply a standard - if it is better than the old
standard.  Then, there could be something new and even better.  Something
to make us "think more different".

~Roger

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Colin Holgate wrote:

> I actually don't mind the fact that Apple runs itself as if it was a
> business. When I worked there (1987-1992) there were a few lay-off
> occasions, and an ongoing rumor about being merged with Sony or IBM. There
> was a joke at the time: "question: What would you call the company if IBM
> and Apple merged? answer: IBM".
>
> Then a few years later things were quite dire. Each time something like
> this would happen it was possible to imagine a future where you had to give
> up your preferred way of computing. The same would be true if Microsoft
> went under, for Windows users, but there's rarely a case where Microsoft
> were in danger of collapse.
>
> The reason I was never a fan of Windows isn't because of a subtle
> difference in the way the OS works, it's because I don't like to do things
> just because everyone else is doing that thing. I would rather use
> something based on its merits. As such, I don't really like that everyone
> automatically gets an iPod or iPhone, just because everyone else does. Now,
> Apple's hardware and software is pretty good, and so is worth having, but
> not just because everyone else has one.
>
> About the $20 to upgrade to Mountain Lion, I suspect that doesn't fully
> pay for the development of OSX, and that's with Apple just having to
> support a handful of computers. Imaging their costs if they had to support
> every conceivable PC configuration.
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Roger Eller 
> wrote:
>
> > If Steve Jobs really did want to make a better world (for all), then
> Apple should share its wonderful
> > creation by allowing it to run on other hardware.  Otherwise, they
> continue to propagate an elitist stereotype.
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality

2012-09-09 Thread Colin Holgate

I actually don't mind the fact that Apple runs itself as if it was a business. 
When I worked there (1987-1992) there were a few lay-off occasions, and an 
ongoing rumor about being merged with Sony or IBM. There was a joke at the 
time: "question: What would you call the company if IBM and Apple merged? 
answer: IBM".

Then a few years later things were quite dire. Each time something like this 
would happen it was possible to imagine a future where you had to give up your 
preferred way of computing. The same would be true if Microsoft went under, for 
Windows users, but there's rarely a case where Microsoft were in danger of 
collapse.

The reason I was never a fan of Windows isn't because of a subtle difference in 
the way the OS works, it's because I don't like to do things just because 
everyone else is doing that thing. I would rather use something based on its 
merits. As such, I don't really like that everyone automatically gets an iPod 
or iPhone, just because everyone else does. Now, Apple's hardware and software 
is pretty good, and so is worth having, but not just because everyone else has 
one.

About the $20 to upgrade to Mountain Lion, I suspect that doesn't fully pay for 
the development of OSX, and that's with Apple just having to support a handful 
of computers. Imaging their costs if they had to support every conceivable PC 
configuration.

On Sep 9, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Roger Eller  wrote:

> If Steve Jobs really did want to
> make a better world (for all), then Apple should share its wonderful
> creation by allowing it to run on other hardware.  Otherwise, they continue
> to propagate an elitist stereotype.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] EULA and legality