"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:486280ed$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> > news:486267b2$1@news.povray.org...

> >> So, the software is freely downloadable from their website, without any
> >> kind of restrictions, does not require any form of access code to
> >> activate, and when obtained legally comes with nothing to certify it's
> >> legality. But to use it you must "obtain a license".

> >> Is it just me, or does that seem weird to you?

> > Not weird. Downloading and using are different.

> I think what's weird is that you don't need to agree to the license
> before you download it.

Technically they are different things. The license presumably covers terms
of use, not terms of downloading. If there *are* terms of downloading, yes,
there should be a separate license for it, but nobody bothers with it.

There's a practical (convenience) factor between presenting the terms of use
license before download, during install and after install. Personally, I
like the first so I don't potentially waste my time with downloading and
installing. But a license is a license, if you don't like it, just uninstall
after you are presented with the license.

> What's illegal about using the software without a license?

Might as well ask what's illegal about driving a car without a license.
After all, the car runs fine for the licensed as well as the unlicensed.

> > Think of it as shareware
> > with 0 day limit but not crippled, which may be what's confusing you.

> Except if the shareware didn't say "you have to pay for this" up front,
> you'd be justified in continuing to use it. (I am not a lawyer, and I'm
> talking about "legally justified" not morally justified, perhaps.)

If it's never mentioned, you do have a point. But if it's mentioned,
ignorance (a la "but I did not read the license.txt file" or "I just clicked
through the fine print") hardly works as an excuse.

> > the fact that the software functions without licensing does not make
> > using it without obtaining one any less illegal.

> The fact that the license is presented after you already have a
> functioning version of the software is what makes the license
> meaningless, at least in the USA.

That the software functions does not render the license meaningless. Like
the example I gave for jaywalking: Even if you are not physically prevented
from jaywalking, and even if the law was not explicitly communicated to you
(ie you never signed a contract affirming that you would not jaywalk), you
can be charged. Two things: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and you
need not be prevented from doing something illegal. A software that does not
prevent itself being illegally used can still be illegally used.

Post a reply to this message