>>It's simple, Dan. It has NOTHING to do with a middleman. You, your PC and the copy of XP you puchased and installed form one licensing unit. If any component changes you must buy a new license. That means you can't give away your PC to charity with the XP still installed (think you can? Google "PCs for Kids").
>
>That is simply not true, Jerry. I didn't look at MS's site but here is a nice article.
>
>http://www.zdnetindia.com/reviews/specials/winxp/stories/26271.html

And here is a quote from that article:
"Consumers should refer to the terms of their license agreement to determine whether or not it is legal to transfer a license to another computer. But in those cases where it is allowed, the product must first be removed from the previous computer. Users may be required to complete the activation on the new computer by placing a call to the Microsoft Activation Center. The details are still a bit hazy, but you can be sure that Microsoft will figure them out before the release."

After nearly a quarter of a century of existance Microsoft the details are 'still hazy' about moving a copy of Winxx from one machine to another. It obviously hasn't been done much, and in the case of PCs for Kids Microsoft wouldn't even allow old Win3.11 on 486 boxes to remain without the charity paying them $300 per copy for a new license. Later they offered to reduce the fee to $90/copy, but hows a charity supposed to afford that? Many commentators noted such an attitude is the highest expression of greed.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~victorp/press/Multimedia/2001/August%201st%20PCs%20for%20Kids.htm



>
>You can't give your software away because it is not yours. You don't own it. Just because MS and a host of other companies don't allow you to freely copy and distribute their software doesn't make them bad guys. Taco Johns allows you to MexiSize your meal for free on Mondays. McDonalds does not allow you to Supersize for free on Monday. It's just a different policy! Not unethical, just different.

When you buy your Big Mack its yours, they won't ask for it back, and free promotionals have occured! :>) (Sorry, couldn't resist.:)

You're right, the EULA, which can be seen only after the shrink wrap is broken and which act binds you to the EULA, says you don't own the software. That's the problem, and the EULA doesn't make it right. Auto manufacturers could do the same thing. Would you agree to it? Neither would I. We can reverse this immoral an unethical sales tactic by passing laws against it. Unless we now live in USA.INC.



>
>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>You haven't look, have you? http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc is the site. The GPL is the license. It is not a "EULA" in the sense that the MS EULA is. The MS EULA takes away all your rights and gives even the ones guaranteed by the constitution to you back to MS. The GPL, on the other hand, says the software is free and the code is free to use as you wish, providing that if you use the software and then add it to code you are posting or selling, you must include the coding additions you made. You can't exploite the work of others for you own advantage. Freely you recieved from the community, freely you must give back to the community. The GPL is about social responsibility and ethics, not greed.
>>
>You did not read it. I just ran the install again.
>
>Here is what I see:
>
>I see a form with the caption "Software License Agreement"
>
>A excerpt from the form follows. I could not find it in the GPL, so it must be in addition to the GPL.
>
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
> ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS
> BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
> BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
> WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
> OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
>
>
>If you don't agree to these terms the install terminated.
>
>It's no different than MS's. ATT doesn't stand behind the product. Unethical.

Right, what you show is the disclaimer, not the license for use. The MS EULA is a license controlling USE. The license controlling use of the VNC software is the GPL license. Both have disclaimers, but a disclaimer on propriatary software for which one has paid big bucks and which is accompanied by draconian restrictions of fair use is aggreggious, to say nothing of being evasive of responsibility. I see that a a congressman is going to introduce legislation making propriatary software vendors liable for security holes in thier products. If that passes you will see explosive improvement in software security coming out of Redmond.

BTW, I know where you are coming from... I used to be an MS software cheerleader.


>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>You "Reduco Adserbum" (:) is just that. If you don't pay anthing for what you get, what are you asking for? Where is the quid quo pro? A contract envolves the exchange of mutually agreed things of value (usually money for software).
>
>Is this law? Point me to a place that says a contract must have "value" for both parties. What is "value"? How do you measure it? If someone is loosing "money" does the contract become void? It's no longer "valuable" to them.

Contract law. http://law.anu.edu.au/colin

"Exchange
A fourth possible basis for making promises legally binding is exchange, that is, that a promise is only binding if it has been giving in exchange for something. This is in fact the traditional basis for legal enforceability of promises in our legal system. A bare promise - a one-way promise where, for example, I simply promise to give you my goat - is not legally enforceable. (But remember, if it is put in a deed then it can be legally enforced.) Contrast the bare promise - usually called a gift promise by lawyers - with an exchange promise: I will give you my goat in exchange for you giving me a pig. We are talking about promises here. So the deal is I promise to deliver my goat to you, say, next Wednesday if you promise to deliver the pig on the same day. There is an exchange of promises. This is what the doctrine of consideration is all about. We will spend some time examining the doctrine of consideration which has some somewhat mysterious aspects to it.


"


>
>>>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.
>>
>>Oh, it makes a big difference. See above.
>
>I don't see it.
>
>>>>>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
>>
>>Isn't that sad! I remember first encountering those legal terms over 20 years ago. We 'understood' what was meant by that. The software would do what the ads said it would do, but don't try to sue the software company if you didn't backup, or you used the software in ways the manual didn't teach, or on substandard equipment, etc.... That folks routinely returned software, received fixes (remember when First Choice came out?) and got new diskette sets with the companies appologies. Borland was like that when Kann ran it. Now, however, there aren't as many choices, and when a vendor has no real competitors they can tell the consumer to ....(see "PCs for Kids")
>
>We don't know the facts on the PCs for Kids deal.

We do now. It's been over six months playing out.

> Yeah, it sounds bad but who knows. I'll play it neutral because I see both sides. Personally, I think MS should allow them to give the PCs away. What if MS allowed it? Would everyone jump on, thinking this is precedent. I do beleive that Gates and crew are very charitable and some agreement will be made.

Actually not. They didn't budge. The founder of the charity has been charged with "theft by deception" and a warrant is out for him. Realizing he had 'been had', he disappeared driving a car owned by the charity which he started and which he is president of. BTW, it wasn't the first time Gates told a charity to take a hike. Remember the French charity? MS met secretly with 20 Austrailian charities to 'smooth over' things, but had the audactity to ask them to sign NDAs. None did.

It would have cost them nothing and they could have made a neat public relations commerical about it. Considering their karma lately, they could have used some help.

JLK