Very Computer

[Assuming US law]

There are two problems with your statements.

(1) To reverse engineer, you are going to probably need to make copies.

(2) Without a license agreement, you do have the right to (a) make copies
as necessary to run the program (e.g., copy it from the installation media to
the hard disk, and from the hard disk to memory), and (b) make backup copies.
Both of these are explicitly listed in section 117 of the copyright law.

--Tim Smith

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:52:27 -0800,

Yes and no.

Consider the case of Microsoft providing no license agreement.  You
would have no right to make a copy (at all, not even for backup
purposes).  You could, though, reverse engineer it all you wanted.
(Since that is not normally forbidden by copyright law, though that
seems to be changing thanks to idiots in Congress.)

A 'License' lists what you may do that is normally forbidden without a
license.  (True for a drivers license as well as a software license:
think of the meaning of 'permission' for license.)

Quote:> The actual contract is between the buyer and Toshiba, not
> between the buyer and Microsoft, but it seems that Toshiba
> is Microsoft's agent. If Microsoft's agent breaches the
> contract, it seems like the buyer would be free to do
> whatever he pleases with the software. I'm not planning
> on testing this theory any time soon, but it's a pleasant
> thought.

Even if you could legally make a zillion copies of Windows, there is
still the question of "WHY?"

--
Brian Moore                       | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
      Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker     |  a*roach, except that the*roach
      Usenet Vandal               |  is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
      Netscum, Bane of Elves.                 Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster

ianal.  the license agreement does not enable you to do things with
the software, it *restricts* your rights (by threatening to use
government force against you).

this is much like `90 day warranties' which *reduce* the warranty you
would have had.

1) default warranty is one year in most states.
2) minimun warranty allowed by law is 90 days.

thus the `90 day warranties' is actually a `-275 day warranty'.  the
company hypes the 90 day warranty as if it were a good thing since

1) explicitly denying a warranty wouldn't be a strong selling point.
2) they are on the hook for providing 90 days in any event.

therefore, offering a 90 day warranty might seem magnanimous, but it
is merely putting the best possible face on giving you the least
possible.

incidentally, making backups is a legal right established by the
courts.  license or no, backups are ok.

Quote:> A 'License' lists what you may do that is normally forbidden without a
> license.  (True for a drivers license as well as a software license:
> think of the meaning of 'permission' for license.)

not true.  the word license seems to imply that it gives you
permissions and rights but in reality it can take away rights that you
would normally have enjoyed.

--
johan kullstam

[snip]

Quote:> A 'License' lists what you may do that is normally forbidden without a
> license.  (True for a drivers license as well as a software license:
> think of the meaning of 'permission' for license.)

(I hope I'm not missing something you said - my newsfeed didn't
provide your response, but someone's response to you)

Similar to what Johan Kullstam also replied, it seems to me
that just the reverse is true - normally when you buy something,
you can do whatever you want to with it. However, the license
agreement puts restrictions on what you can do with the item
you purchased. Normally, if I pay money for something, I own
it, but with software (under an operating license agreement)
I only have the right to use it subject to terms and
conditions. No contract - no conditions.

I think "contract" is a better word in this case then
"license" - it doesn't appear to be quite the same as
a driver's license or MD's license.

You're right that copyright law seems to take a lot of the
fun out of it, unless you could argue that the breach of
contract now makes it a work made for hire, or somehow gives
you ownership rights that supercede the copyright. Seems
quite a stretch though. Still, you probably could do a few
things, like reverse engineer, benchmark, or maybe run
multiple instances over a network.

Arthur

I doubt that such activity as making multiple copies for your own
amu*t, and potentual damage to Microsoft, would be
tolerated by the courts, even in a legally ambiguous case as
this.

I would bet that the courts would look at the intent of the
license agreement, and also at agreements between Microsoft
and Toshiba as their agent.  Looking through copyright rose-
colored glasses, clearly (!) Microsoft prohibits you from using
their software without first giving up your right of Free Speech
to benchmark it, or creating your own 'compatible' version.

It would be an interesting court case for someone to challenge
the licensing clause that says you can't publish performance
information about a given software product without written
authorization from the vendor.  Maybe someone like Larry
Ellison will get a bug up his *to challenge this issue in court.

There's also one other factor overlooked so far in this thread, but
(disclaimers first) IANALE (either), and I haven't read the full EULA for
some time now.  But, one thing I do remember from a variety of other
contracts is that they usually include a clause to the effect of "if any
one clause of this contract is found to be invalid or unenforceable by law,
then that clause shall be treated as non-existant.  However, the invalidity
of any clause shall not invalidate remaining clauses"  Which, taken to the
extreme, means you can say what you damn well *y please in the
contract, and if the consumer falls for it, GREAT, you pulled the wool on
them; if they get wise, then you deal with it as if that clause were never
in the contract.  

It would be interesting to know what the precedents are in
software licensing / copyright law, and how they differ from
books/music/etc.  OTOH, I can't think of any commercial
software I'm so hot about (esp. MS) that pursuing this
would be worthwhile.

Quote:> It would be an interesting court case for someone to challenge
> the licensing clause that says you can't publish performance
> information about a given software product without written
> authorization from the vendor.  Maybe someone like Larry
> Ellison will get a bug up his *to challenge this issue in court.

Assuming Oracle doesn't have the same clause in their licenses.
I'm under the impression that shrink-wrap licenses have never
really been tested in court(as opposed to copyrights which have),
so perhaps the entire industry would be reluctant to take the
matter on and lose.

Arthur

[SNIP]

About the "90 day warranty"...it was the Magnus and Moss Warranty Act  of  1977
that guarantees you, the consumer, one full year  of  support.  If  the  vendor
refuses to give you any support after 90 days, simply call,  ask  to  speak  to
a manager, mention a lwayer and that act,  and  see  how  fast  they  clean  up
/their/ act. Knowledge /IS/ power. ;)

--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
 the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
 that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

    Jeremy> [SNIP] About the "90 day warranty"...it was the Magnus and
    Jeremy> Moss Warranty Act of 1977 that guarantees you, the
    Jeremy> consumer, one full year of support.  If the vendor refuses
    Jeremy> to give you any support after 90 days, simply call, ask to
    Jeremy> speak to a manager, mention a lwayer and that act, and see
    Jeremy> how fast they clean up /their/ act. Knowledge /IS/
    Jeremy> power. ;)

That's right.  If you have knowledge, you don't call support lines.
And you're dreaming, anyway.  Certainly, nothing like your fantasy
would happen if you called the company I work for.

mp

8<---------------how-easy-is-it-to-demunge-an-address?------------------->8

while ($line = <>){ if ($line =~ m/^\s*$/ ){ last; }
if ($line =~ m/^From: (\S+) \(([^()]*)\)/){ $from_address = $1; } }
if ($from_address =~ m/\S+NOSPAM\S+/){ $x = index($from_address, NOSPAM);
substr($from_address, $x, 6+1) = ""; printf("The real address is %s\n",
$from_address);}else { printf("No munge, just plain %s\n",$from_address);}
printf("\nBrought to you by the Truth In Mail Headers Foundation\n");
8<-----------------------here's-one-example------------------------------>8

- --
                             Michael Powe

                         Portland, Oregon USA

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard

iD8DBQE2p5kQ755rgEMD+T8RAsbrAJ9rkUCEGP37TGb9kTNXgxQ0QPRhXACeMaS0
TMmo2+5B3+pZs5EiPoRjjmY=
=T2mB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

It depends on the situation. The only time I  would  call  for  support
would be after trying anything, andeverything I could possibly think of
to solve the problm myself.

Quote:>And you're dreaming, anyway.  Certainly, nothing like your fantasy
>would happen if you called the company I work for.

So says you. It's federal law, you can't just  ignore  it  whenever you
feel like it. Like it or lump it, they have no choice.

--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
 the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
 that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."

        Then he can just file a harrassment suit in a local
        pissant court and either force you deal with it at
        considerably more expense or just get default judgement.

        It's never a bright idea to*off someone even
        remotely familiar with their legal rights.

--
                Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats

Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or         |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out   / | \
as soon as your grip slips.

        In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://www.veryComputer.com/