 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
In another part of the license, it says "by downloading this software
you agree to the terms of this license" - but you cannot *see* those
terms until after you download it. ;-)
Of course, as you say, uninstalling the software is a pretty easy
solution to that...
>> 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.
Here's the thing that jumps out at me: You can *prove* that you have a
license for a car.
I have no way of proving or even *knowing* if I have a licence for this
software. We paid a company some money and got given a box that contains
[amoung other things] some software. Should I assume that we are
therefore licensed to use that software? For how many PCs? We got a
total of 3 CDs, so does that mean 3 PCs?
If I decide to claim we're licenced to put the software on 13 PCs, can I
prove my claim? Can the makers disprove my claim?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In another part of the license, it says "by downloading this software
> you agree to the terms of this license" - but you cannot *see* those
> terms until after you download it. ;-)
In the USA, that's going to generally be unenforcable. You have to know
what you're agreeing to before you agree to it. Basic contract law.
"By opening this envelope we mailed you, you now owe us $1000. Please
send it in as soon as possible."
> If I decide to claim we're licenced to put the software on 13 PCs, can I
> prove my claim? Can the makers disprove my claim?
By putting it on more machines than you have CDs, you're making
additional copies, which can be restricted against your will by
copyright law. But if you only have three, and you didn't agree to a
license at all, and you put it on three machines, you're golden. At
least, in the USA.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:45:37 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> If I decide to claim we're licenced to put the software on 13 PCs, can I
> prove my claim? Can the makers disprove my claim?
Yes, because there's a purchase history.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> b) Make *one copy* of the SOFTWARE in machine-readable form solely for
> back-up purposes. Copyrights laws and international copyright treaties
> protect this SOFTWARE. You must reproduce on *each copy* the copyright
> notice and any other proprietary legends that were on the original; and
>
I find the combination of "one copy" and "each copy" interesting
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> 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.
>
> What's illegal about using the software without a license?
>
I can download Windows XP without reading a license, that doesn't give
me permission (license) to use it.
>> 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.)
>
I think lawyers would disagree. It's a hazy area. Let's say I put up
some java based website that does something that people want to do. I go
to no trouble of hiding the java files, and maybe even leave the source
code out there for people to look at. Just because it is available does
not mean that someone else could take that source code and build a
duplicate site. I would still have copyright and they would be using an
unlicensed copy of the code.
If, however, I said 'download the source code here to use it' that would
change a lot of things.
>> 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.
>
According to whom? Inside the box and click-thru while installing
licenses are still common in the USA. I agree they are evil, but they
are still being enforced. You have the working version of the software,
and still have to agree to the license before using it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I can download Windows XP without reading a license, that doesn't give
> me permission (license) to use it.
Not because of the license, but because the downloading itself is illegal.
>>> 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.)
>>
>
> I think lawyers would disagree. It's a hazy area.
Certainly.
The basic point is that a license is unenforcable if you didn't agree to
it. Copyright is enforcable even if you don't agree to it.
> Let's say I put up
> some java based website that does something that people want to do. I go
> to no trouble of hiding the java files, and maybe even leave the source
> code out there for people to look at. Just because it is available does
> not mean that someone else could take that source code and build a
> duplicate site. I would still have copyright
Right.
> and they would be using an
> unlicensed copy of the code.
Irrelevant. It's the copyright preventing them from making a copy, not a
license issue at all. If you were to take them to court and say "they
didn't agree to the license", the court would ask you what you're suing
for, then, since there is no contract.
It's exactly the same situation as someone giving you a quote to paint
your house, you deciding you don't want to spend that much, and them
charging you anyway. Without agreement, there is no license.
Indeed, in the USA, even *with* agreement, if the license prevents you
from doing something copyright law says you may do, the license is
invalid. (See Prolock v CopyWrite)
> If, however, I said 'download the source code here to use it' that would
> change a lot of things.
Yes. That would be giving them a license to *copy* it, not use it. You
can of course condition the license to copy on particular uses, like the
GPL does.
If you mail me a music CD out of the blue, and then say "you're not
allowed to listen to this until you pay me for it", you're not likely to
win your court case when I enjoy it anyway in all the ways that
copyright law allows.
>>> 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.
>
> According to whom? Inside the box and click-thru while installing
> licenses are still common in the USA.
Yep. Neither is enforcable if (for example) the store won't take the
software back if you disagree with the license. Of course, it hasn't
really been through too many courts, but that's the general consensus -
you actually have to have agreement. Simply (for example) putting a link
on the home page that says "go here to read the terms of use" isn't
enough to show the person agreed to the terms of use.
> I agree they are evil, but they are still being enforced.
Because people are agreeing with the licenses. Note that if the
shrink-wrap license is *inside* the shrink-wrap and you can't see it
before you use the software, it's not generally enforcable. If the store
won't take back the software because you disagree with the license, it's
not enforcable. Otherwise, I'll just put a paper inside the sealed box
that says "by opening this box, you owe me 3x the money," and that
should be enforcable too.
This is all basic contract law. You can't bill someone for work they
didn't agree to after you already do the work. You can't let someone
pump gas, then tell them after its in their tank that the price actually
went up while they were pumping it. You can't fix someone's car, then
afterwards tell them they're obligated to drive you to work the next
morning.
> You have the working version of the software,
> and still have to agree to the license before using it.
It's not working before you install it and click through. That's the
point. You agree with the license in order to get to the login screen.
You can get up to the point where you read the license agreement as
often as you want without the seller having any ability to legally stop
you from doing that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In another part of the license, it says "by downloading this software
>> you agree to the terms of this license" - but you cannot *see* those
>> terms until after you download it. ;-)
>
> In the USA, that's going to generally be unenforcable. You have to know
> what you're agreeing to before you agree to it. Basic contract law.
So it should say "by *using* this software you agree". ;-)
>> If I decide to claim we're licenced to put the software on 13 PCs, can
>> I prove my claim? Can the makers disprove my claim?
>
> By putting it on more machines than you have CDs, you're making
> additional copies, which can be restricted against your will by
> copyright law. But if you only have three, and you didn't agree to a
> license at all, and you put it on three machines, you're golden. At
> least, in the USA.
OK. And the fact that I can download an unlimited number of copies from
their website with no record at all changes... what, exactly?
If you claim that owning a physical CD is the "license", then
downloading the software from their website is essentially illegal - so
why are they offering this service?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If I decide to claim we're licenced to put the software on 13 PCs, can I
>> prove my claim? Can the makers disprove my claim?
>
> Yes, because there's a purchase history.
Not if I download another copy from their website there isn't.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Is it just me, or does that seem weird to you?
This isn't half as weird as the following part of a software license:
<snip>
You agree you are not actively participating in the animal testing
industry, either owning or running a laboratory, supplying testing
equipment to laboratories, or funding animal testing. This includes
university and college medical and science departments, as well as
private organisations and government.
</snip>
Found here:
http://www.exttld.com/index.php?content=terms
My two eurocents,
Bonsai
--
<--------------------------->
___ __ __ _ ___ ___ _
| _ ) \ \( ) _) _ )( )
| _ \() |\ \ |\ \/ _ \| |
|___/__/_)\__)___)/ \_)_)
www.b0n541.net
<--------------------------->
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
