>>The license is to the user, not the machine. This is a standard practice for most companies, at least in the EULA's I'm looking at. What's unethical about it?
>
>No, it's not, Dan. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2091300,00.html
>

Absolutely nothing in that article says that a license is by machine.

Here is part of it: Within the UK, the software licence agreement is automatically attached to computers by the PC builder or supplier, and licensed in the name of the customer.


>You can't move a copy of WinXX to a different PC that you own, new or not,

Yes you can. I find it hard to beleive that you would fall for that.

>and you can't sell or GIVE AWAY (see quote above) a PC with it's copy of WinXX+license entact. Recheck Microsoft's EULA.

That's right. It's because the software is licensed to you, the person.

>>
>
>> Is the Linux community unethical because they fall under the same laws as MS?
>
>That is a non-sequiter, sort of like saying "MS is unethical. MS is a software company, therefore all software companies are unethical" Ethics is based on behavior, not group membership, unless you're Taliban.

No, I think you are confusing ethics with opinions. Ethics are generally accepted rights and wrongs.

>>VNC does not come with a warranty or guarantee. Is ATT Research Labs unethical? It's GNU so is GNU unethical? By your definition the whole software industry is unethical.
>
>Dan, you are a better logician than that. You know that only Microsoft peddles its software through OEM PC vendors, presinstalled, and only MS hides behind those vendors to fend off its responsibility to honor its OWN EULA. The vendors got off by claiming its not their license. The consumer is left paying the bill but holding an empty bag.
>

Come on Jerry. What happens if I build my own PC and buy my XP license from MS? There's no middle man now. Do I now have a license to sue? This is America. You can sue whomever you want whenever you want. You just have to prove the case. Contracts are thrown out every day in our court system. Other than criminals, what do you think court's handle?

Your whole issue is that MS, and others, build into the EULA clauses that protect it from any liabilty and that it is unethical to do this. I'm saying EVERY software company does this (VNC, Redhat, to name a few) and the public, the industry, and court accept this as standard practice. Therefore, it is right and ethical to have such language in the EULA.

>Blowing smoke doesn't obscure the issues. VNC is not propriatary, nor is it sold, nor is any kind of charge made for its use. It does not require a 'license'. Users pay nothing and receive no guarantees. They use it at their own risk. Vendors that sell software for money, some for LOTS of money, should be prepared to assume risk for failure to deliver claimed benefits. That's what a contract is all about.

VNC requires a license. Install it. There is a EULA. If you don't accept it you can't use it. The EULA spells out the terms of the license.

If you are going to make the amount paid determine responsibilty you need to step back and rethink that. Just because something is free doesn't exclude the manufacture from liablilty. At what dollar amount should MS start becoming liable? If they sell Windows for $0.01 does the liabilty kick in? Is it tied to profits?

Doesn't matter if the product is free or $1,000,000. It all depends on the contract (license, EULA, whatever) and the law. Software companies are sued every day. No EULA exempts them from that.

>
>>Find a EULA that accepts blame and reimburses the user in case of failure.
>
>That's the problem, Dan. There used to be laws like that until a few years ago with Software houses greased congress to get themselves exempted from product liability laws that other industries still have to follow.
>JLK

My copy of DBaseIII+ from 1988 excludes itself from any warranty, except for the media for 30 days. I think it's been going on since the first commercial software title.

Dan