Jim wrote:
> Unruh wrote:
>> roy.schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>>
>>>The BSA says on its Web site you should keep all original disks,
>>>documentation, and licenses of any kind for all your software
>>>especially Linux because
>>>Linux has yet to withstand the courst wrath.
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.netorkworld.com/newsletters/sbt/2006/0612networker3.html?...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Thus, it is not surprising that...
>>
>>
>>
>>>CIO Jury: Linux software licensing 'too complex' .
>>
>>
>>
>>>,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Traditional enterprise Linux software licensing has become too
>>>complex and
>>>| is pushing organizations towards on-demand and closed source
>>>| alternatives, according to IT directors.
>>>`----
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes no sense whatsoever. None of the licenses have been tested in
>> court, including the Microsoft license. Andd I have no idea what they
>> mean by "too complex" GPL does not seem that complex to me. Those IT
>> directors strike me as being totally clueless, or maybe they are taking
>> they cue from Sco.
>>
>> If they are talking about Redhat, their license is a support license, not
>> a software slicense. As they admit. They however have very purposefully
>> tried t make their license as obscure as possible so that the users would
>> get the impression that they must buy a license for each installed
>> system. They do not. But redhat would like them to believe they do.
>> So if that is the complaint, it is one directed at Redhat, not at Linux.
>>
>>
>
> Microsoft EULAs have been held to be illegal or not having any legal
> standing in most of Europe. Germany was first IIRC.
>
Right. Any additional licence *after* the sale, which could not be seen
before the item was bought, is invalid. Shrink-wrap licences have no legal
standing. As it always should be
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
|
|
