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

[Brian Wood]

Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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.

The legalty and/or the enforceability of "shrink wrap" licenses is
questionable, and in at least one case a court has decided against them:

http://www.freibrun.com/articles/articl22.htm

A couple of states tried to "help" the software industry by enacting
laws to make S/W licenses enforceable, both efforts failed:

http://library.findlaw.com/1994/Jun/1/130938.html

The mere fact that they tried to enact such laws indicates that they
were aware the current statutes were not what the software companies
wanted them to be.

But we continue to have to click "I Agree" in order to even attempt to
use our purchases. I guess it's like sitting through the FBI warning on
a DVD movie, nobody really expects G-Men to burst in if we share a
movie, but the makers somehow think that they are scaring us into
compliance.

Unfortunately the problem the software, and the movie people for that
matter, have to contend with are the mass-production "pirates" in Asia,
not the poor user who actually paid for his shrink-wrapped box, and
those guys are not deterred by any click-through license, or FBI warning.

So we have a process that does not work, and wouldn't solve the problem
even if it did, yet it continues every day.

Are we sure this wasn't developed by the government ???

beww