OT: licensing bull; RE: [Samba] Ssh into Windows XP?
samba at tlinx.org
Mon May 19 19:31:33 GMT 2003
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Niehof
> It's up to you to read the XP license agreement to determine
> whether you think this violates its terms and, if so,
> whether you care.
Your reply assumes that the license has validity. If I
tell you that every email message I receive is received only
under a license that gives me complete control over the content
of your message -- and I maintain that view for 10+ years -- and
I convince enough people that the receiver of a message can subject
any material sent to them to a license of their choosing...then
regardless of reality, or the law, if I get enough people to believe,
I might just have it accepted as common fact -- do much so that
it is trivial to get law makers to encode such into law -- because
it is now 'common wisdom' that received messages are subject
to license of the receiver.
Another example -- recently there was a court ruling that
entering a website automatically subjected you to a lengthy
"N"-page license -- and that gathering prices from the website for
a price comparison report (like Consumer reports might come up with)
was _illegal_ because it violated the license that you accepted
by entering the website. Compare this to the fine print on my
store that says you accept the store's license conditions when you
enter the store. The license conditions are available to read,
or you can just 'accept' the license by entering the store. Now you
find out that if you price compare Safeway with Kroger or Albertson's
or Macy's with Nordstrom's --for the same item, you are in violation
of the store's license policy that you agreed to by entering the
I can see it next -- store say they will beat any advertised
price of another store by 10% .... until you look at the license
you accepted when you entered the store -- which says that if you
enter the store you agree not to compare prices to any other store
or their advertised price and doing so subjects you to prosecution
under tresspassing law. So you go to claim your 10% price difference
and find yourself taken away in handcuffs but find that you won't
be prosecuted if you will pay the store's legal fees and not
disclose the price differences.
Or imagine (in the way of MS .NET license and performance
comparisons) that the stores have posted licenses that you 'push
door to accept' that say you won't comment on price, service,
selection, etc, of the store in any article without explicit permision
and review of the store's mangement.
Sorry to go off on a rant...but the *assumption* that the
license is valid in the first place pushes my buttons.
Imagine a microsoft screwdriver license -- that you will not
use the screwdriver on any other screw for which it was purchased --
and MS convinces that makes of screws must sell screwdrivers with
every screw they sell (since not doing so would lead consumers to
screwdriver piracy -- using the same screwdriver on multiple screws)..
etc. etc. etc.
Then there's the idea of having to have a difference license
for each computer *shell*. Hello! The OS is on the Hard Disk. Not
in the memory (assuming the computer is off), not in the CPU, not
in the monitor....etc. If I want to put my Windows XP on a USB
or removable SCSI/IDE hard drive and use the same copy on multiple
computers, you think MS would support that? It's perfectly legal in
the real world, but under MS-bogus licensing terms? Ha!
Anyway....just venting randomly...when it comes to licensing,
just say 'no' -- use common sense, piracy -- bad, but having a
hair stylist charge by the hair is ridiculous....
More information about the samba