[Gllug] New Microsoft Licencing scheme

[Nix]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Kim Hawtin stated:
>> 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.

Again, they are *not copyright licenses* because they endeavour to
restrict what you can do with them; and even if they *were*, *use* of a
product is not covered in any way by copyright. They could only charge
you with copyright violation if you tried to copy it (because a work
with no copyright license cannot be copied by anyone except the author);
which (surprise!) is exactly what their EULA says anyway.

So it would change nothing outside of MS's head.

> 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.

Convicted of what? Persistently continuing to use products you have paid
money for?

OK, but that's not illegal. (Thankfully.)

-- 
`Upsetting this BOFH was a BAD MOVE.' --- Chris Newport

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