[Gllug] New Microsoft Licencing scheme

[Xander D Harkness]

Nix wrote:

> On 18 Sep 2001, Timothy Coggins said:
> 
>>On Tue, 2001-09-18 at 13:42, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>>If someone agrees to it then of course it is legal.
>>>>
>>>A contract is not legal just because you agree to it.  That is a basic 
>>>principle of contract law.  You can challenge an unjust contract even if 
>>>you signed it.
>>>
>>Indeed, however in this case the user agrees that Microsoft can
>>"extinguish" the license as it pleases which looks to me to be perfectly
>>legal (IANAL). If the user doesn't agree to it then they do not use the
>>product (which is one of the reasons I use Microsoft products as little
>>as possible).
>>
> 
> If the license has no force, then extinguishing it is meaningless.
> 
> (And MS's EULA `licenses' are shrinkwrap, and there's no class of
> agreement that maps to them; they're not a copyright license because
> they endeavour to restrict what you can *do*, not how you copy; they're
> not a contract because both you and MS haven't agreed to it in a manner
> such that both parties know the other party has agreed, because MS
> doesn't even know who you are, let alone that you've agreed...)
> 
> 

If it is neither a contract or agreement; then why do so many spend so 
much when they do not 'comply' with M$' ideals?

All companies that have had queries from FAST or similar organisations I 
have advised to just throw away.  They seem toothless and a great waste 
of time.

Cheers
Xander


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug