On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 11:49:05AM -0500, Cameron Moore wrote:
<snipped stuff> 
> > As the EULA come after the "purchase" of the product (i.e. after it was
> > downloaded), it has the same significance of the EULA you have to
> > acceppt when you are installing a product.
> > 
> > So -at least in Germany- you don't have to care about it at all. It's a
> > change of contract that one party (M$) wants and offers to the other
> > party (you). So you are free to accept it or discard it.
> > 
> > Note: There's no hint about an EULA at the website and even worse (for
> > M$) you don't have to accept it (e.g. by clicking on it) before you are
> > downloading it. 
> 
> The way I see it, a EULA doesn't have to be clicked through or
> explicitly accepted through some procedure.  The EULA ships with the
> product just like the GPL ships with FlightGear.  Both are applicable
> and *using* each product implicitly means you accept the license.
> 
> I know (via /.) that people have jumped through hoops to keep from
> clicking through a EULA, but it's pointless.  We should respect
> Micros~1's EULA's just as much as we respect the GPL.

There's a big difference between the GPL and MS' EULAs: the GPL is a
licence to /distribute/ - you have no rights to distribute a
copyrighted work other than those granted in the GPL. The GPL says
nothing about your personal use of the work.

MS' EULAs put restrictions on your use of their products. These
restrictions have nothing to do with the restrictions defined in
copyright law, or anywhere else - you can do /anything/ you want
with something you've bought, aside from the things made illegal by
copyright laws. When you buy something or download it or anything
like that, you don't actually agree to a contract placing any extra
limits on your use of the product (unless you have to click through
/before/ downloading or buying), and so you're buying the product
under the assumption that it's covered by copyright law and nothing
else - same as with a book or magazine or whatever. MS'
click-through licence agreements come /after/ that purchase, and
hence constitute a new agreement MS is trying to get you to enter
into, over and above what you agreed to when you handed over your
money. /That/ is where the problem comes from - you already have the
right to do whatever you want with what you bought, within the
bounds of copyright law. MS is trying to get you to agree to new
terms. You don't have to - if you don't agree, your rights to use
the product revert to those granted by copyright law. As I
understand it, there's actually case law that says that you can
ignore the click-through license thingy completely - if you have to
click "I Accept" to install and use what you bought, you can, and
that /doesn't/ constitute agreement to the terms in the license. I
imagine this varies between jurisdictions, of course . . . 

IANAL, of course - this is just the understanding I've gained from
folowing this issue for the last few years. But I'm fairly sure it's
reasonably accurate.

The GPL is /vastly/ different from an EULA - it /grants/ you rights,
where an EULA takes them away.

Simon
(Can you tell you hit a big red button of mine? ;-)

-- 
PGP public key Id 0x144A991C, or ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/himi/himi.asc
(crappy) Homepage: http://bg77.anu.edu.au
doe #237 (see http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS) 
My DeCSS mirror: ftp://bg77.anu.edu.au/pub/mirrors/css/ 

Attachment: msg06368/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to