somebody wrote:
> 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.

Right. There's a difference, and that difference is...

> But a license is a license, if you don't like it, just uninstall
> after you are presented with the license.

... that both parties have to agree to a license to make it binding, 
while only one has to agree to put a work under copyright to make it 
binding.

>> What's illegal about using the software without a license?
> 
> Might as well ask what's illegal about driving a car without a license.

The law.  But a license isn't binding if you don't agree to it.

Here, here's a license. By reading this message, you owe me $1000 USD. 
Think it's a good idea to have licenses like that? What, you don't 
agree? Sorry, too late.

> After all, the car runs fine for the licensed as well as the unlicensed.

OK, so you buy the car and take it home. A week later, the salesman 
shows up and tells you that you owe him another $10,000.  You're cool 
with that, right? I mean, just give the car back if you don't agree.

Hey, I'm going to make a license that says you're not allowed to 
test-drive a car without buying it. But I'm not going to tell you about 
that until after you test-drove my cars. Shouldn't be a problem, right?

> 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.

It depends. The question is whether you "agreed" in a contractual sense.

> That the software functions does not render the license meaningless.

No. Your failure to agree with the license renders the license 
meaningless. If your software only works after you agree to the license, 
you have presumedly agreed to the license.

> the example I gave for jaywalking: 

You're confusing statute law with contract law.

Jaywalking is illegal because elected officials caused it to be illegal. 
  You can't tow my car off of public parking at the curb just because 
you don't want a red car in front of your offices. Even if you post a 
sign on the building saying "no parking on the street in front of our 
offices", you don't have the privilege of enforcing it.

Those cases where you *do* get to enforce it against my will, elected 
officials causes a law to be written allowing you to do that. (Say, 
like, no-loitering laws.)

> (ie you never signed a contract affirming that you would not jaywalk), you
> can be charged. 

By the government. Not by the owner of the building on the corner.

> 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.

Again, you've missed that a license is a contractual agreement. It isn't 
a law. If I don't agree, you don't get to enforce it. Otherwise, I'd 
just license that you owe me $1000 for this conversation.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message