Another general topic that probably no one wants to talk about is whether
terms of use licenses are fundamentally awesome or fundamentally bullshit.
It seems obviously stupid to suggest that a store could sell you a sack of
flour, but require you to use it only for baking cookies, not cake. But,
if they wanted to make that offer, perhaps in exchange for a 50% discount,
should you be allowed to make that deal? Or should it be illegal to even
make that offer?
As others have said, this is obviously less of a problem when there are
lots of stores, and if you don't like the terms one store is offering, you
can shop somewhere else. I personally agree with those who have said that
the lack of choice/competition is the real problem, and that saying "not
only is there only one store, but that store will be heavily regulated in
what it can sell" is a pretty lousy solution. But, it's complicated.
In any case, another argument is that terms-of-use licenses are
fundamentally bullshit, and that once you buy a thing, you can do whatever
you want with it, and that any deal that includes limits on what you can
do with your stuff is fundamentally invalid. But I bet that road also
leads to Despairburgh.
-Josh ([email protected])
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
