Not a lawyer, so this may or may not be useful. It will depend on jurisdiction. As well as on exactly what you did.
If you have not licensed the database in question, you haven't entered into the agreement, and its terms cannot be binding on you. Suppose its part of the OSX EULA that you agree not to make tools which will allow installation on non-Mac machines. This might be binding on people who buy and install OSX and click through the agreement, but it cannot bind someone who has not clicked through. If the user takes your software in such a case and does an export, are there grounds for proceeding against him? Not as described, it is you and not him that has developed the export function. He has simply used it. If he has entered into an agreement not to export his data? Well, its not your problem. He may have entered into all kinds of crazed agreements, its up to him how he manages them. If you have clicked through, you have (at least in the US) really entered into a contract not to do it, but not all contracts you enter into in this way or other ways are enforceable in all jurisdictions. It even varies from country to country in the EU. For example, if you click through an agreement in the UK which abridges your rights under consumer protection law, it will not be binding or enforceable. This is why if you look at mail-in guarantee forms that come with consumer goods, you will find a declaration to the effect that sending it in does not affect your statutory rights. No EULA clause that abridges your rights under consumer protection law will be enforceable in the UK. So will a clause as described be enforceable in the EC or the US? The essence of the case as described is that the buyer of the software is being restrained by the EULA from doing something. What he is doing is apparently not being done with the software, so it is not a restraint on how the software is used, but on other behavior, after the software has been bought and installed. It is still controversial in both jurisdictions whether and to what extent a supplier can restrict what use a buyer makes of his software after the purchase. So it is still a question whether such clauses as only permitting installation of OSX on Apple branded machines, only installing Office under Windows (as opposed to under Wine), not installing Vista Home on a virtual machine, are enforceable. In the EU, restraints on how you use something after you've bought it are said to be viewed negatively by EU competition law. But at least in the case where the clause says, you may not use this software to construct programs which export the data in CSV form (for instance) the clauses are attempts to restrain use of the program you have bought. Even so, I'm doubtful that this would actually be enforceable. You've got to imagine a court ruling that while it is technically possible to use the database package to write an exporting tool, the supplier can forbid you from doing it by contract. Does anyone know of any cases like this? The case being discussed here appears to be a more extreme case than the above however. It appears to be restraining behavior which does not involve use of the software in question. It seems to be saying that when you have bought this software you have agreed not to use any other software to do something. It would be analogous to a clause which said that you agree that if you install this software, you will maintain your body mass index below 25, or mow your lawn once a week in summer, or wear a black turtleneck at all times. If the first sort of restraint is dubious, this seems completely implausible. Are there any cases in which a EULA has been used to restrain behavior which does not involve the use of the software it is packaged with? Bottom line, if I had not licensed the software in question, I would not worry at all. If I was not using the software in question to construct the export function, but using some other software, even had I licensed the software which contains the restraint, I likely would not worry. If I were using the software in question to construct it (that is, writing the export function in that software, and had licensed it), I would worry a little and maybe get advice about the state of the law on post-sale restraints on use, and the enforceability of EULAs in my particular jurisdiction, where that means, the particular country I lived in. But I would be very surprised to be told I was in any danger. But I am not a lawyer, its just an opinion.... > I am about to complete a database tool (commercial) and "suddenly" > remembered license terms of one commercial database prohibiting creation > of tools capable to import databases created with their product into any > other database system. > > Although this export/import was not a purpose of my program I wanted to > add this as an additional feature. Now I am not sure if it is legal at > all? Or is it? Or it depends?.. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-illegal-creativity--tp22609945p22615288.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
