On 01/06/2011 11:30 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: >>> * Because it circumvents democracy by allowing Microsoft's code to dictate >>> the terms of the agreement regardless of what legal rights are granted to >>> consumers. >> >> >> I doubt this. Maybe I just don't understand the claim being made. > > Well WGA allows MS to go beyond what copyright law allows. the WGA > makes an EULA do things beyond what contract law and copyright law > allow. Same for DRM. Maybe you can understand it in the DRM context.
I should clarify what I'm talking about. An EULA is almost certainly an invalid contract because nothing is signed, and you can't see the EULA before buying. The WGA enforces the EULA anyway, or retroactively changes the terms of the EULA (which you supposedly agreed to in the EULA). This is the main reason I prefer Linux. An open source license is not an EULA, but even better grants me license to the source code itself. I love this line, paraphrased from the GPL: You do not have to agree to the terms of the GPL to *use* this software; the terms of the GPL only apply when you wish to redistribute the software. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
