On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Michael Torrie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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). > I don't know. I'm pretty sure that if you say no you don't accept the EULA you can return the copy and get your money back. I seem to remember folk even doing something like that with the Windows that came preinstalled on new PCs. And it only changes the terms if you get the updates. If you have a copy of Windows without the WGA it has to be downloaded in an update. If you don't want the WGA don't take the updates. > 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. I prefer to not purchase music from the iTunes music store for a similar reason. They have their DRM and I vote with my wallet. I don't like their terms, so I don't give them money. You don't like Microsoft's terms so you don't give them money. That seems pretty democratic. Horray! A solution to WGA! /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
