>>My fundamental view is this: You agreed to someone's terms personally as an individual, or as an agent acting on behalf of your corporate entity, guiding and directing that entity by your choices. Abide by them.
>
>That is absolutely incorrect.

"Absolutely incorrect." That's a powerful statement.

>The law protects both parties. There are many employers who put clauses into work agreements that are against the law...

Consider the position you're supporting here. You say, "Go ahead and sign something or agree to something you don't believe in because if it ever comes down to it (like going to court), chances are you'll be okay." That's no guarantee, but consider an alternate position:

Suppose upon reading the terms of Microsoft's EULA, for example, we concluded we disagree with those terms because, let's say, we want to be able to implement repairs to damaged software that is impacting us or our business, and the inability for us to decompile or reverse engineer the software to identify how it's designed to be able to apply patches is explicitly forbidden, so we say, "No. I do not agree to those terms," and move on to the next product that's available.

One person doing this would probably not impact anything (no matter who they are), but if we teach one another to not follow such things, and to stand up for what's right, and to not let companies doing bad things for their own personal gain override our ability to receive from them useful tools that increase us in this world, then we (collectively) will have an impact.

There are too many people in this world willing to compromise values because of what shiny thing is set before their eyes. They are willing to agree to things they don't even believe in so they can have the utility that's being dangled there before them. It's the instant gratification response. "I want it. I don't care what I have to do to get it. I MUST HAVE IT!"

It's not supposed to be like that. We are supposed to be upright individuals in this world recognizing that we are here as part of a community of man. We are supposed to have it in our fundamental core to help one another, and provide for one another, so that we together create a viable community. There are not supposed to be greedy people coming together to create greedy enterprises and greedy governments who prey upon our covet desires to take us away from the place of honor and truth and moral fortitude, yet there are because we will not stand up and be those strong people saying "No" to the shiny thing, and instead saying "Yes" to righteousness and truth and being stand-up men and women in this world.

It is a calling to do what's right, and it's actually a necessity lest we find ourselves living in a world very much like the one we're in now.

We, individually for ourselves and our families, and collectively for our communities and societies, must turn back toward that righteous and true path and stop letting designing entities lure us away from our moral and ethical foundation by their shiny trinkets. We must be willing to step up together and do the hard work (like write a Visual FreePro to counteract Microsoft's policies and harm done to 10s of thousands) so that we are not under that yoke of bondage any longer.

We're facing a new type of battle in this world. Things can move so quickly nowadays. An idea can become a product in months, and with the Internet it can be impacting people world-wide so quickly that it's just amazing. Facebook didn't even exist before 2004. The iPhone wasn't even released until 2006, and wasn't in wide acceptance until 2010, but look how entrenched around the technology our world is now. And it's been in the last several years we've seen every major player in each of their respective software industries pushing out new and constant updates and upgrades, to keep us focused on the getting the latest thing. What version is Firefox up to now? (version 63 I just checked)

We're facing a new world where a great divide is going to take place. People are going to follow after the latest trends because there are designing entities at work luring people into those places, and not for their benefit, not for their good, not for anything positive in the long-term. They'll get nice shiny trinkets of software to use, and products that impact their lives, but while all of that is happening, their station as owners in this world is being ebbed away bit by bit, replaced with lookalike renter privileges. They no longer have a CD or DVD disc to install on their local machine, but now everything's on the cloud. Turn the Internet off and you have nothing.

There are so many co-joined components to this type of argument that it's difficult to clearly separate and differentiate them because there are so many overlapping concepts, but the gist of it is this: We have to step back, step away, pause, and look at the bigger picture. We're losing too much too quickly, and all of it is being lost over the same kind of covet means that people engage in when they agree to things they don't actually agree with, hoping that it never becomes an issue here in this world, though I would state categorically that we are accountable for everything we say and do regardless of whether or not some legal or other entity in this world calls us on it. There is a higher morality and duty to our lives here than just the local laws and law enforcement, and it stems from the full examination of every facet of our lives scrutinized individually, trait-by-trait, characteristic-by-characteristic, and it's done on a forensic's analysis table and not with regard to circumstances. No matter what's going on around us, we still have an obligation and duty to stand up for and do what's right.

> The employee may sign this contract, but is not at all required to keep those clauses that violate the law. If the employer would refer to the clause in the contract, a lawyer would help that employee in court to get his way against the contract he signed, if he can find a law that makes this clause invalid. This is justice and a very important factor in our legal system.
>
>Apart from that there is a rule that any person must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. The proof does not come from the contract, because the contract must be proven first if it abides to the law. Sometimes it is a grey area (which we see in this case) where a ruling may only be effective if a case is brought before the court and decided on a per case statement. Also in this respect, the person is not guilty unless the court declares his guilt.
>
>For anybody here to label a person as guilty is in iteself against the law in my view, and a person may have the right to fight this in court. Especially on the Net it is very important to think before accusing persons by name, because a persons name may be attached to accusations, that even though they are not true, may stain his future professional carreer.
>
>The question in general if an undertaking like this is legal to use is valid and important for many business decicions. To question peoples morale in this context has no added value and does not help in determining the right approach.
>
>That's my 0.2 cents.

That's my 0.2 cents.