Software Licensing and Sanity (was Re: Moving from SCO to SuseLinux)

[Fairlight]

Only Kenneth Brody would say something like:
> 
> I think the courts have already decided that you must be able to read the
> license agreement prior to opening it, or else be allowed to return it after
> opening it.  (ie: you can't be bound to the terms of an agreement that you
> cannot see until after agreeing to it.)

That's good at least.  It's spreading to more industries, too.  I read of a
medical text publsher that gave a complimentary copy of their latest work
to some doctor, and they had a shrinkwrap license inside the book that
basically wouldn't let you give it to anyone, nor could you use it for 'x'
purposes, nor could you return it, nor could you dispose of it.  It
basically became a white elephant of a paperweight.

> That's why most software now requires you to click "I agree" as part of
> the installation process.  (I don't think "sure, I signed that contract,
> but I chose not read it" is an accepted line of defense.)

Clicking a button != signing a contract.  Let a vendor -prove- that a
company clicked such a button rather than some employee acting on their
own, or that a parent did so rather than their children.  Okay, the latter
is a bad example since they bear legal responsibility for their children's
actions, but say their spouse then.  Or college roommates.

You're not actually signing anything, even digitally.  There is no way to
prove who the Responsible Person is.  

It's so nebulous as to be patently absurd.  It always has been.

As for requiring that you click "I Agree" after reading it, well big deal
if you've had to break the seal to get at it to start the installation
process anyway.  Good luck getting any chain store to take it back, as
of at least five years ago.  You -may- be able to get the manufacturer
to take it back, but you know darned well they're going to suddenly want
to place undo burden on the person who failed to agree to license it by
auditing their systems to prove it was never installed, or was at least
removed--which point is an invasion of privacy since you never agreed to
allow audits in the first place if you didn't agree to the EULA that would
allow it.  

So in effect, I suspect many people shrug, say, "Yeah, whatever," click "I
Agree" even though they sure as hell don't, and go merrily on their way.
I've talked to enough M$ Pa$$port users that use MSN Messenger and Hotmail
to know that that's probably the case when extrapolated, for just one small
example.  I can think of a bunch of people that use it that vehemently
-dis-agree with the EULA, yet use the services.  I have a strong suspicion
that the methodology behind such licensing/return policies has as much to
do with the problem as do the ever-overreaching natures of EULA's in the
first place.

Heck, from what I've read and been told, anyone using PC-Anywhere or VNC on
WinXP is violating the EULA of WinXP.  And you -know- that people are using
both, so obviously many really don't give a fieg.

Redmond and the U.S. Govt. should just officially merge and save the
duplicate effort at achieving total control.  

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html