Yes, exactly. But those limits are covered by existing laws. I have a lot of trouble accepting that the software industry is so different an animal that it should get special treatment that allows it to draw it's own separate limits.

Is a contract between two parties of such disparate strength really acceptable in law? Normally a contract is a negotiated instrument. In this case, the software producer, knowing that we must use the software to earn a living in this industry, holds all the cards and is using that power, simply dictates terms above and beyond those held by the standard legal system. Isn't that, at least in part, what the Justice Department suit was about?

It's easy to say we have a choice whether to buy and use the software, but in practical terms, do we really?

Alan

>Alan;
>
>Actually, there are limits to what you can do with different types of copyrighted material. Take recorded music for example. Can you play it in a public establishment, over the airwaves or Internet without breaking established laws? Can you Xerox a book? In reality we do have different types of laws and restrictions on many types of copyrighted material.
>
>Software seems like such a “strange duck”, with its dependency upon hardware, operating systems, other software and those that are physically impaired, (mentally impared users) just to give a short list.
>
>You see disclaimers for software that lead you to conclude you use it at your own risk and there are no guarantees that it will work or work for the purpose intended. Yet we are a part of this industry and it is becoming more refined all the time.
>
>Is this just a dream? Perhaps I have been behind a CRT for too many years. The radiation has gotten to me or God knows what! :)
>
>Tom
>
>
>>And therein lies the entire problem. Software should not be treated any differently than music, books etc. When I buy a CD or a book, I am bound by the same laws of copyright etc that protect the software producers. BUT! I can otherwise do what I like with the product.
>>
>>The whole concept of licensing and eulas in the software industry is a legal nightmare for normal human beings and should be done away with (if not voluntarily, then by Government decree).
>>
>>It also seems to me that requiring that a Microsoft product be used only in conjunction with another Microsoft product directly contravenes the spirit of the Justice department case decisions. I thought tied-sellling was illegal.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>>Just one more thing I want to clarify. I've never said that the EULA as it currently reads is good or bad, fair or unfair. I'm only stating that MS has the right to put this in their EULA if they want.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>(speaking as a) non-lawyer, b) from german perspective)
>>>>Since this EULA is packaged and read after the buy, you only run the risk of being challenged if you don't adhere. There might be some rules of "surprising clauses", especially if they are changed from older versions.
>>>>
>>>>MS giving you a "license" and keeping certain rights was challenged here in the question, whether it is allowed the sell the OS of a PC/OS bundle, which MS didn't allow in the EULA a few years ago. You are the owner of the OS and are allowed to sell it separately.
>>>>
>>>>Seen from that perspective it might be arguable, whether I am allowed to run my own copy on linux. But if I sell an app with the runtimes, how am I to control where it is installed ? If it works, it works. Who is the person MS will be going after ? The developer usually has no right to enforce how customers install the product. The only bugout might be an EULA referring to the MS EULA and try to stay out of it...
>>>>
>>>>In my eyes, there is no need for MS to fix issues arising on linux, only bugs cropping up on the specified OS. This is, in my eyes, a (legally) relevant business reason - keeping test cost down.
>>>>
>>>>I am not sure, whether MS's legal view on specifying the OS will be supported in (relevant) courts, but I don't want to be the one to test it. OTOH, MS might also not wish to get a ruling on this account.
>>>>
>>>>my 2 c's
>>>>
>>>>thomas