[Gllug] New Microsoft Licencing scheme

[Kim Hawtin]

> >> > 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 microsoft extinguish all the existing licences, including those 
purchased, then one would assume, microsoft can charge anyone
continuing to use the products, with copyright violation.

so, how many court cases would that be? even if only for cooperate 
users? and would they settle out of court? for a fee? better to settle
than be convicted, surely.

yours,

Kim


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