OK, so here's a strange thing. Take a look at this:

"1.  GRANT OF LICENSE

This license allows you to:

a)  Use the SOFTWARE only on any single computer.  You must obtain a 
supplementary license from us before using the SOFTWARE in connection 
with systems, multiple central processing unit, computer networks, or 
emulation on a main frame or mini computer;

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

c)  Configure the SOFTWARE for your own use by adding or removing fonts, 
desk accessories, and/or device drivers."

...this from a piece of softwar that is freely downloadable from the 
maker's website without any restrictions of any kind. The 3 boxes they 
gave us each contained a pressed CD, but nothing [tangable] you could 
describe as a "license".

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?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

It sounds unenforcable to me, but I'm in the USA. Copyright law and 
license law aren't even written by the same governments here. Its 
possible your country has laws that make possible the enforcement of a 
license post-hoc on the software you have already legally obtained.

-- 
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

"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. Think of it as shareware
with 0 day limit but not crippled, which may be what's confusing you. In
that case, here's an analogy: The city can deem jaywalking illegal even if
it does not erect 12 foot electric fences around all the roads. In other
words, the fact that the software functions without licensing does not make
using it without obtaining one any less illegal.

Post a reply to this message

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.

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

> 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.)

> 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.

The way you force someone to agree to the license is to tell them they 
don't have a license to *copy* the software without agreeing to the use 
license. Then copyright law prevents you from using it after you copy it.

Of course, much of what the "license" seems to be restricting is stuff 
already controlled by copyright law in the USA. Indeed, that whole "you 
get to make one backup copy" is indeed copyright law, not license law, 
in the USA - if your license said you weren't allowed to make a backup, 
it would be unenforcable anyway, even *if* I explicitly agreed to it. 
Basically, the license seems to be saying "you're not allowed to make 
more copies once you've downloaded it."  The emulation bit might be a 
bit tough to enforce - I don't know the law on that one.

(Indeed, the backup clause sounds so USA I suspect the company got the 
license from a US company, or is a US company.)

-- 
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

"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

>>> 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