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

Darren New wrote:
> 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?
> 

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

Invisible 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.
> 
> So it should say "by *using* this software you agree". ;-)

Basically, yes. But it has to be provable (to some degree of "provable") 
that you actually saw and understood the license. They can't let you 
download the package, have the license on a different page of their 
website, and then say "you agreed because you used it."

>> 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?

Changes compared to what? Technically, since you're the one requesting 
the download, you're the one making the copy. Computers don't make 
copies, people do.

> If you claim that owning a physical CD is the "license", 

I don't. Again, you're confusing two entirely different pieces of law. 
Owning a physical CD means someone else made the copy for you. Having a 
license isn't even covered by laws in the same government as making copies.

> downloading the software from their website is essentially illegal 

If they say "it's OK to download the software" without adding "as long 
as you agree to the license", then they're giving you permission to make 
a copy of their software by downloading it. (This is called a "license" 
in copyright terms, but I'm trying not to confuse things further - 
that's a different license than the one you agree to when you"use" the 
software.) If they don't condition the download on you accepting their 
usage license, then they can't impose that usage license later unless 
you re-agree to it.

It's really a pretty simple thing that's getting made complicated. 
Copyright law says you're not allowed to make a copy[1] without 
permission of the copyright holder. Contract law says there are six 
things[2] that have to be true about a contract before it is enforcable, 
one of which is that both parties must understand what it means and 
agree to be bound by it. One of the things copyright law *explicitly* 
allows is for you to make a copy if that's the normal way of using a 
product. You can't say "you can buy a copy of this audio CD, but you're 
not allowed to copy the bits into the RAM of the CD player." Once you 
have a copy of a program on a CD, and the normal way to use it is to 
copy it into the memory of the computer, that's technically not "making 
   a copy" any more than reading a book is "copying it into your brain".

But if you haven't agreed to the license, you're not bound by the 
license, even if copyright law says you're allowed to make a copy or to 
do whatever you want with the copy you bought. If they let you make a 
copy without agreeing to the license, they can't bind you to the license 
without further getting your explicit agreement to it. Hence the whole 
"before Windows lets you install this, click thru the "i agree to the 
license" dance. You already have the disk, so you're not making an 
illegal copy by installing it, so they have to get you to agree to the 
license *after* you install it and *before* it does anything you want it 
for.

[1] ... for some legal definitions of copy.

[2] the others being things like both parties have to get something out 
of it (so it's not a contract if I buy something for $0), both parties 
have to be old enough to be allowed to agree to contracts, that certain 
contracts have to be in writing, etc.

I'm still not a lawyer. Everything I say here may be completely 
inapplicable to your situation or your entire country.

-- 
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 wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>  > 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.
> 

I don't know where the license Invisible copied was located. If it was 
on the CD during the installer, then it's binding because you agree to 
it before the program is actually running. If it's a slip of paper, AND 
the CD installs without you clicking anything suggesting that you agree 
to the license, then contract law would hold trump.

Myself, I would probably email the software creator and ask them 
something along the lines of 'WTF is up with this license?' and continue 
to use the software I paid for. But, companies are strange critters with 
their own team of lawyers, and it's probably safer if it's being used on 
the job to turn over the license to them and let them handle things.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:19:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Not because of the license, but because the downloading itself is
> illegal.

Depends on where you download it from.  If you download it from MSDN, 
it's perfectly legal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:13:48 +0100, Invisible 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.
> 
> Not if I download another copy from their website there isn't.

If you download another copy from their website and they don't track that 
sort of thing, I'd be surprised.  But if they didn't track it, then shame 
on them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Depends on where you download it from.  If you download it from MSDN, 
> it's perfectly legal.

If you can download it from MSDN, you've already agreed to the license 
when you signed up for MSDN.

It really is pretty simple. :-)

-- 
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 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Depends on where you download it from.  If you download it from MSDN, 
>> it's perfectly legal.
> 
> If you can download it from MSDN, you've already agreed to the license 
> when you signed up for MSDN.
> 
> It really is pretty simple. :-)
> 

Not true for me, anyways.

I can download XP just fine with just my campus login information 
through the local mirror. Actually, I think almost anyone could, if they 
found the mirror's address. It might block to local ISPs or VPN only, I 
stopped paying attention at some point.

Getting the license key for XP, however, requires clicking through a 
license agreement on the MSDN page. I am free to do just about anything 
with that CD image...burn it, draw pictures on the burned CDs, hang them 
from a car mirror...but until I agree to the license, both on MSDN and 
on the installer, I am not licensed to use XP.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I can download XP just fine with just my campus login information 
> through the local mirror. 

I don't follow. Are you actually going out to MSDN to get the software? 
Or has the university stored it locally, after *they* agreed to the MSDN 
licenses? I'm sure Microsoft made sure *someone* agreed to the license.

> Getting the license key for XP, however, requires clicking through a 
> license agreement on the MSDN page. 

Yep.

> I am free to do just about anything 
> with that CD image...burn it, draw pictures on the burned CDs, hang them 
> from a car mirror

Hard to say. Maybe *you* are and someone in the campus administration 
would get in trouble.

 > ...but until I agree to the license, both on MSDN and
> on the installer, I am not licensed to use XP.

Right. But *if* you could use it without clicking through the 
agreements, they couldn't impose any after the fact. That's precisely 
why they make you click thru the agreements.

-- 
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 Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:13:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Depends on where you download it from.  If you download it from MSDN,
>> it's perfectly legal.
> 
> If you can download it from MSDN, you've already agreed to the license
> when you signed up for MSDN.

Actually, I don't believe I did, because I was signed up by my employer.

> It really is pretty simple. :-)

Well, yes, but the statement was that it's not legal to download the 
file.  I was just pointing out that there are circumstances where it 
is. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:13:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Depends on where you download it from.  If you download it from MSDN,
>>> it's perfectly legal.
>> If you can download it from MSDN, you've already agreed to the license
>> when you signed up for MSDN.
> 
> Actually, I don't believe I did, because I was signed up by my employer.

The employer signed it on your behalf. They get to bind you to 
contracts, you know. :-) Technically, *you* aren't downloading it, the 
company is. You're just downloading it on behalf of the company.

>> It really is pretty simple. :-)
> 
> Well, yes, but the statement was that it's not legal to download the 
> file.  I was just pointing out that there are circumstances where it 
> is. ;-)

Sure. I thought you meant from a warez site or something. Obviously, if 
you (the company) has already agreed to and paid for the MSDN license, 
that's a different story than just randomly downloading the file.

-- 
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 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:27:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:13:04 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Depends on where you download it from.  If you download it from MSDN,
>>>> it's perfectly legal.
>>> If you can download it from MSDN, you've already agreed to the license
>>> when you signed up for MSDN.
>> 
>> Actually, I don't believe I did, because I was signed up by my
>> employer.
> 
> The employer signed it on your behalf. They get to bind you to
> contracts, you know. :-) Technically, *you* aren't downloading it, the
> company is. You're just downloading it on behalf of the company.

Yep, that I know.

>>> It really is pretty simple. :-)
>> 
>> Well, yes, but the statement was that it's not legal to download the
>> file.  I was just pointing out that there are circumstances where it
>> is. ;-)
> 
> Sure. I thought you meant from a warez site or something. 

Nah, what would the point be, since I can download it from MS myself?

> Obviously, if
> you (the company) has already agreed to and paid for the MSDN license,
> that's a different story than just randomly downloading the file.

True, but I was taking the statement "you can't legally download it" at 
face value.

Jim

Post a reply to this message