On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 17:45, Michael Halcrow wrote: > Not quite. > > If you were to argue that a EULA is not valid because you didn't sign > it, fine. If a court of law agrees with you, then you are scott > free. > > If you were to argue that the GPL is not valid because you didn't sign > it, fine. If a court of law agrees with you, you can then be sued for > copyright infringement if you distribute copies.
Well said. I think that if the courts ruled that the EULAs for MS were invalid, then there too things would have to revert to standard copyright law (which would mean an instant violation). As for EULAs go, there needs be a middle ground. I think Wordperfect had it about right when their license said to treat the software like a book. It can be transferred, but only one person at a time can use it. MS's garbage about a license being non-transferrable is complete nonsense and totally invalid. Did you know you can't even give away retail box software that you've purchased and subsequently used from MS? Michael > > See the difference? > > If you do not wish to be bound by the GPL or a EULA, then that is your > right, but in either case, you must still act in accordance with > copyright law. > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:51:32PM -0600, Steve Dibb wrote: > > My point wasn't so much the differences in the licensing, but rather the > > approach to, in my mind, unbinding contracts based solely on the ethics > > of the user. > > > > GPL, MS EULA or otherwise, if it's not signed, in my mind, it's not > > legal. > > Great. Then you do not have permission to redistribute the original > or a derivative of the original code. > > > So it seems to me that ignoring MS's EULAs and adhering to the > > GPL would be a principle of select morality - i.e. I do what I think is > > right, when I agree with the goal's of the proposed license. > > Then don't use Microsoft's software. That way, you don't have to > worry about accepting or rejecting their EULA at all. This is a truly > liberating approach. > > > So, it kind of comes off funny to me when there are people who will get > > mad when someone does violate the GPL, when a good portion of computer > > users ignorantly or purposefuly shrug off an MS EULA. > > No. I could care less about a ``GPL violation.'' There is really no > such thing as a ``GPL violation'' anyway. I get mad when someone > violates my copyright. > > Mike > > By reading this, you are agreeing not to read this. > > .__________________________________________________________________. > Michael A. Halcrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Security Engineer, IBM Linux Technology Center > GnuPG Fingerprint: 05B5 08A8 713A 64C1 D35D 2371 2D3C FDDA 3EB6 601D > > If you are too busy to read, then you are too busy. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
