Adobe EULA crash & burn...

Adobe EULA crash & burn...

Post by Bria » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:04:46



Hello Dear Friends:

http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5628

Softman v. Adobe: What it Means for the Rest of Us

<quote>
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for
software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the
Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here
is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes.  If you put
your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy,
EULA or no EULA.

So does this mean Linux users can break up a hardware/software
bundle, keep the hardware to run Linux on and sell the software?
Yes, says attorney Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of the Berkman Center for
Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.  "It makes a strong case
that the licenses purporting to restrict resale in this manner are
not valid licenses--so the transactions are in fact sales, and
the buyers are not subject to the "license" conditions.  It helped
that Softman hadn't even had to click a clickwrap", Seltzer said
in an e-mail interview.

"I think the decision is on the right track.  First sale is an
important limitation to copyright's control, and shrinkwraps have
gotten out of hand in their attempts to extend control beyond the
bounds even of copyright", she added.
</quote>

Food for thought, no?

Best regards,

Brian
Linux Mystic

 
 
 

Adobe EULA crash & burn...

Post by Jim » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 07:20:57


We'll see.

Rome wasn't built . . .
A journey begins with the . . .

Thanks Brian.  
-Jim-


  Hello Dear Friends:

  http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5628

  Softman v. Adobe: What it Means for the Rest of Us

  <quote>
  "The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for
  software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the
  Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here
  is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes.  If you put
  your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy,
  EULA or no EULA.

  So does this mean Linux users can break up a hardware/software
  bundle, keep the hardware to run Linux on and sell the software?
  Yes, says attorney Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of the Berkman Center for
  Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.  "It makes a strong case
  that the licenses purporting to restrict resale in this manner are
  not valid licenses--so the transactions are in fact sales, and
  the buyers are not subject to the "license" conditions.  It helped
  that Softman hadn't even had to click a clickwrap", Seltzer said
  in an e-mail interview.

  "I think the decision is on the right track.  First sale is an
  important limitation to copyright's control, and shrinkwraps have
  gotten out of hand in their attempts to extend control beyond the
  bounds even of copyright", she added.
  </quote>

  Food for thought, no?

  Best regards,

  Brian
  Linux Mystic

 
 
 

Adobe EULA crash & burn...

Post by ...winsto » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:50:41


Thanks Brian..
Time will tell<s>
 ..winston

"Brian"
http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5628

Softman v. Adobe: What it Means for the Rest of Us

<quote>
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for
software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the
Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here
is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes.  If you put
your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy,
EULA or no EULA.

So does this mean Linux users can break up a hardware/software
bundle, keep the hardware to run Linux on and sell the software?
Yes, says attorney Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of the Berkman Center for
Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.  "It makes a strong case
that the licenses purporting to restrict resale in this manner are
not valid licenses--so the transactions are in fact sales, and
the buyers are not subject to the "license" conditions.  It helped
that Softman hadn't even had to click a clickwrap", Seltzer said
in an e-mail interview.

"I think the decision is on the right track.  First sale is an
important limitation to copyright's control, and shrinkwraps have
gotten out of hand in their attempts to extend control beyond the
bounds even of copyright", she added.
</quote>

 
 
 

Adobe EULA crash & burn...

Post by Bryan Kenned » Sun, 02 Dec 2001 02:22:22


If this holds up, which I think it will, Microsoft and the RIAA will need to change a few things.  Like I've always said.  Once you buy something, it's yours to do with as you please.

We'll see.

Rome wasn't built . . .
A journey begins with the . . .

Thanks Brian.  
-Jim-


  Hello Dear Friends:

  http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5628

  Softman v. Adobe: What it Means for the Rest of Us

  <quote>
  "The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for
  software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the
  Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here
  is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes.  If you put
  your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy,
  EULA or no EULA.

  So does this mean Linux users can break up a hardware/software
  bundle, keep the hardware to run Linux on and sell the software?
  Yes, says attorney Wendy Seltzer, Fellow of the Berkman Center for
  Internet & Society at Harvard Law School.  "It makes a strong case
  that the licenses purporting to restrict resale in this manner are
  not valid licenses--so the transactions are in fact sales, and
  the buyers are not subject to the "license" conditions.  It helped
  that Softman hadn't even had to click a clickwrap", Seltzer said
  in an e-mail interview.

  "I think the decision is on the right track.  First sale is an
  important limitation to copyright's control, and shrinkwraps have
  gotten out of hand in their attempts to extend control beyond the
  bounds even of copyright", she added.
  </quote>

  Food for thought, no?

  Best regards,

  Brian
  Linux Mystic

 
 
 

1. HELP: Adobe Type manager, Adobe Sans MM, Adobe Serif MM, Acrobat Distiller

This question aplies to a Mac in my case but probably to any system
which uses Adobe Type Manager (ATM).

I am trying to distill a postscript file which contains Palatino,
and Distiller (v4.0) substitutes Courier for Palatino. Needless
to say, this doesn't work at all.

But is is -supposed- to substitute something created on the fly
by ATM which has similar characteristice to Palatino, isn't it?

Also, I bring up ATM and, having both "Adobe Sans MM" and "Adobe Serif MM"
loaded and open, I ask ATM to "create MM instances" and it says "There
are no Multiple Master fonts open" or something like that. Hunh? Are
not "Adobe Sans MM" and "Adobe Serif MM" both perfectly valid Multiple
Master fonts?

Finally, I can download the postscript file to my printer and it prints
just fine. But the postscript for Palatino is internal to the printer,
in ROM. I don't think I have ever had the actual postscript for Palatino
as a file. Even though I have the bitmaps for Palatino in my system
folder, lacking the postscript causes Distiller to do the substitution
of Courier for Palatino. So while I can print I can't Distill! Wah!

Any help will be much appreciated. I'll watch all the groups to which
I have posted this article.

All the best to one and all!

P.S. My actual return email address is in the signature. Sorry, I just
get way too much SPAM!

--
-------
jjhowe
   at
teleport.com
No Spam!

2. 68K app compiled on PPC

3. Does your board crash and burn with a few serial

4. Set owner/group of newly created file to parent directory?

5. Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 Sound Crash and Burn

6. Opinions wanted on editor/librarians

7. Call Me Crash-n-Burn

8. Saving webparts on SQL server

9. Quark 4.1 upgrade = CRASH, CRASH, CRASH?

10. RFC: Adobe Acrobat 3.0 & PDF & The Internet

11. P.S.: Crashes, Crashes, Crashes!

12. CRASH - CRASH - CRASH :-(((

13. Adobe eBook Reader 2 crashes Athlons?