RE: [tlug] copyright and theft [was: unicode font with czech ...]

[<burlingk@example.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J. Turnbull
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:31 AM
> 
> Josh Glover writes:
> 
>  > On 16/08/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
>  > 
>  > > To those who would make the obvious fanboy reply: stealing from
>  > > thieves is still stealing, both morally and legally.
>  > 
>  > I agree with you, but let me point out the obvious: violating the
>  > terms of a licence is not stealing, by definition.
> 
> But you're not violating the terms of the license; AIUI you can't,
> because you haven't made a contract with Microsoft.  The alternatives
> are conform to the license or violate their copyright.
> 
Microsoft EULA's are worded as contracts.
Most new systems come set up in such a way that the first time
you boot them, it requires you to agree to the EULA.

You may concider an EULA different from a contract, but
it gets treated the same way in court, just like a "Handshake
Agreement" used too, except that with an EULA, the judge has
sufficient reason to assume that the plaintif is not making
things up.

And for those systems that don't ask you to agree to the EULA
at startup, there is the wonderful clause in the manual that
states that by using the software, you agree to the terms of
the EULA.

They really do handle all the grey areas. ^^;;  And as far
as I remember, the only EULA's that Microsoft uses that allow
copying of any sort are the ones they use for their development
tools, such as VCC and Visual Basic.

-- 
Ken (Someone who has read a few too many MS EULA's and perhaps
     suffered braindamage because of it =^@example.com@^= )