[OT] EULA and legality
palcibiades-first at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Sep 7 16:48:49 EDT 2012
I have never believed the EULA restrictions would be enforceable in court in
the EC. First because its a contract of adhesion. Second because it may
say its a license not a purchase, but if it walks and quacks like a purchase
that is what the courts will hold it to be, and then you can do what you
like with it. Third because it breaches consumer protection legislation,
like making the conditions of purchase clear before you buy. Fourth because
post sale restrictions on use are anti-competitive. See the auto
aftermarket, a manufacturer cannot tell you what parts to use as a condition
of purchase. Fourth because if you actually sell the product separately,
its going to be a linked sale, and that is frowned on.
I similarly don't believe MS would ever have been able to enforce the
restriction on VMs.
I do believe copyright restrictions will be enforceable, and that is what
sunk Psystar - unauthorised copying for installation on more than one
machine. Not on. If they had bought one copy and installed it on each
machine, maybe. But they'd have made a loss on every one.
But, I am not a lawyer, so this is just a lay opinion, use at own peril.
Yes, this was the whole point of replacing bios in the way that its being
replaced. Lockdown the machine. Maybe not the starting out idea, but how
its ended up. Following the Apple example. Not so much enemies of promise,
more enemies of freedom.
View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654679.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the use-livecode