Re: [tlug] Novel embraces Microsoft

[<burlingk@example.com>]

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:22:47 +0900
> From: stephen@example.com
> Subject: Re: [tlug] Novel embraces Microsoft
> To: Tokyo Linux Users Group <tlug@example.com>
> Message-ID: <8764dpm3l4.fsf@example.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
<snip> 
> Nope.  That is what "doctrine of first sale" is all about.
> 
> You can write a license like that, of course (Keith provided a sample
> :-), but you can't enforce it under patent or copyright law.  It needs
> to be a contract.  But of course the rights referred to as "reserved"
> are those that are granted under copyright law.
> 

Problem is, that the way they write their licenses, they are wording them like contracts.  They make the offer, and state that these are the terms.  If you continue then you are accepting.  It is also written on the manuals of many of their packages, so as to avoid the whole "I had to open the CD to READ the license" argument.

I know that may be nit picking, but they could probably make the argument fly easily.

Most of their EULA's don't leave a lot of room for interpretation either.  They are in mostly plain English, just a LOT of it. ^^;;  They are pretty brutal. :P About the only EULA's they use that don't ask for almost everything but your soul (that part is in question in some cases) are the ones for their compilers.