Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 08:13:04AM -0600, Brian Wood wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Without the code, you don't own *the code*.  This is not the same as not
> > owning the *software*.  If you possess an executable binary free of legal
> > entanglements, you own *the executable binary software*.  If you possess
> > source code free of legal entanglements, you own *the source code*.
> > These are *not* the same thing.
> 
> I'm not sure how you plan to own an executable binary "free of legal
> entanglements". Ever read the license for commercial software? Those are
> about as entangling as anything in this world.

I was commenting on my view of the ethical state of ownership and what
the law *should* be -- not what the law *is*.  The law, as it currently
exists, treats EULAs as if they were pre-agreed explicit contracts,
allowing vendors to sue people as if they were in breach of contractual
terms to which they never actually agreed.  Et cetera.


> 
> Most commercial software is not sold, it is licensed, and the terms of
> some of the licenses border on the absurd. For example, with most
> versions of Vista, you are nor permitted to run it in an emulated
> environment.

Agreed.  See above.


> 
> Then there is Sony, who didn't see anything wrong with installing root
> kits on customers machines, without their knowledge or permission, in
> order to "check compliance" with the license (though this was not
> "software", it was music, which I guess might be called "software", as
> it is a pattern of data).

Yes, this is bad.  See above.


> 
> Most licenses literally grant the publisher the right to barge into your
> house to "check compliance".

I agree this is not good.  See above.


> 
> Nothing wrong with such a license, as long as both parties agree to it
> and it is legal, but most people don't read the EULAs, and wouldn't
> understand them if they did. Heck, the lawyers who write the licenses
> can't agree on what they actually mean.

Furthermore, people are essentially tricked into "agreeing" to the EULAs
even if they read them after purchase -- since they have to lay down
money for the damned shrink-wrapped box and take it home, split the
shrink-wrap, and unpackage everything, before there's even a chance of
getting to read the EULA.  In many cases, they don't get to read it until
the CD is actually read by the computer and the EULA displayed on the
screen.  This is *not* an agreement; it's a coercive bit of trickery,
like getting someone drunk or drugged, then getting the person to sign a
contract without reading it, and all with the complicity of the judicial
branch of government.


> 
> So I use FOSS when I can, and commercial stuff when I have to. I really
> do try and comply with any license I agree to, but it can be hard when
> you can't figure out what they mean.

Ditto.


> 
> As Linus once said: he who writes the code gets to choose the license.

That's certainly how things work right now, thanks to copyright law.

I'd prefer "he who writes the code gets to decide under what contractual
terms it may be acquired, and if someone acquires the software honestly
without (yet) agreeing to the terms, he or she owns it free and clear".
Anything else is a scam.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
markinct @techrepublic.com: "Don't take anything you do on-line lightly.
Caveat Clicker..."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20080921/7d616b1b/attachment.pgp>