Slashdot Mirror
UCITA Hits A Few Speedbumps
mmt writes: "The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on the past, present and future of the UCITA." Slashdot has covered the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act before. It's interesting to see that some of the brighter purchasing agents have already encountered and rejected attempts to use UCITA in out-of-state contracts. Have you or your company run into a situation where a software company wanted you to buy software under UCITA's rules?
It seems the push to pass UCITA is failing, that is just one battle, perhapse now we should be pushing anti-UCITA legislation like Iowa . Let's not sit around enjoying the victory.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
I don't see what's so funny about this post; it's actually quite informative, and I think that it makes a good point. If somebody in your organization insists on paying somebody for free software, you might as well take advantage of it to funnel the money to a deserving group like FSF.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Don't forget that helpful Office Assistant, Clippy. When was the last time you received witty, insightful assistance from your Linux box. It's worth the closed source and the price premium to have Clippy help me out when I get in a jam.
It did pass, but hasn't taken effect yet. Jim Gilmore signed in on March 14, 2000.
It takes effect July 1, 2001.
The law delayed implementation to allow concerns to be expressed.
A study on the impact of the law is due Dec. 1.
Please elaborate. Thanks.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Dude, if you want to see the stupidest, look no farther...
If the media would give any attention to this issue at all, it could only help to further the spread of GPL'ed software.
GREAT WEBSITE>>>> www.thelinuxpimp.com
That's my point nimrod.
I'm not confused at all, I'm merely commenting on what you have said and telling you that you are stupid in your reasoning. It takes me five minutes to do so, and I get entertainment out of it.
Two people caring about each other is a form of recriprocating payment, I dont expect you to understand that. Each individual in the couple pays with emotions, time, and affection - they get something in return.
Unfortunately your thought process is noting that payment means something totally different than what it is. Payment is just something to get something. You love your wife, she loves you - that is a circular payment. You are too simple to think outside the box.
I do like one thing though - you failed to comment on me telling you you were stupid, good for you, there may be hope for you yet.
The world is a shithole because you make it that way, until you pull your head out of your ass it will consistently be in shit - that's how it works. Also, most of my comments are generalized and not specific for you, but for everyone who thinks about them. Unfortunately you have never completed the part of mental maturing where you think of things outside of yourself. If my philosphy on life is so fucked up, then why I am the one that loves life and you, the one who understands things, hates it?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
But paying for stuff with corporate money... that's charity.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
If RedHat is able to make money selling, for $1K what I'm selling for $1.50 then all the more power to them. My guess is that they'd also have to provide scads of support, or something, to be able to hold amarket share under those conditions.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You talk an incredible amount of bollocks, Ritchie.
--
Jesus Christ, that's exactly the point I'm making. You are paying for a *copy*. You are not paying for a *licence* to use that copy. Please do not pretend to be an ideut.
--
It's not as though consumer lititgation is exactly destroying their profits, either. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the country, so the current level of consumer litigation is hardly driving them into bankruptcy. I hadn't thought of it in exactly these terms, either, but what does it say about a company when they argue that they can't be honest with their customers because it would cause too many lawsuits? Is there any worse indictment of the industry as it now exists than their own admission that being honest with their customers would result in increased litigation and decreased customer choice?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
How on God's green earth is this a troll? It makes a legitimate point about the PHB-like idiocy that exists in some companies. It's on-topic and doesn't have any of the "bait" that usually marks a troll. (Yes, I know that posts can be modded up and down to arrive at scores such as "4, Offtopic" or "0, Insightful," but it seems somebody doesn't have a bleeding clue what "troll" means.)
Overall, the quality of moderation and metamoderation on /. has been on a downward spiral lately. I used to be willing to moderate, but a few morons who like to abuse metamoderation put an end to that. I doubt that I'm the only one, which would lead to the quality of moderation slipping as well as the inDUHviduals who mod good posts down aren't going to attack each other in metamoderation.
Hell, it seems that more than a few people are more interested in attacking people's sigs than engaging in rational dialogue. Maybe it's no wonder that moderation/metamoderation are also slipping.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Do you live in South Dakota too? God I hate winter.
You think your big time?
You think your big time?
I'll kick your ass so hard you'll be unbuttoning your neck button to piss!
as "Uninformed Computeruser Is Takingitupthe Arse"
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
You could just print out a copy of the GPL and add the title "[insert distro here] End-User License Agreement".
In the best of all worlds each distribution would have an 'authors list' that lists the names and email addresses of all the people who ever wrote anything that ended up in the distribution, then you could give that list to your boss and say "These are the people that wrote this software. Send them each a donation if you choose." Only then may your boss understand.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
The only person I trust is my wife. Did you read my bio? It explains a lot. Don't trust your own mother (or father as the case may fucking be), because if you trust too completely, they will find a way to break you.
You think your big time?
You think your big time?
I'll kick your ass so hard you'll be unbuttoning your neck button to piss!
Can you make this a butterfly ballot for the polls?
Under UCITA, MS would be given the ability to impose a subscription format for all of its software without you agreeing or even knowing about it. The clause saying this would be easily tucked away inside the shrink-wrap license without the consumer having to have even known about it. Further, under UCITA, Microsoft can shut off your software remotely whenever they want if they feel you have violated any of the clauses of their shrink wrap license (or any other 'implicit' license they feel you have been subjected to by purchasing or using their software). Microsoft has been and is one of the primary backers of UCITA. This is not a mistake. MS wants to have full control over what it has supposedly "sold" to you. But, because of UCITA, you haven't really bought anything because full control of the product (just like under Office Subscription Edition) rests with Microsoft and, even without court order, they can repossess what they have supposedly "sold" you.
I'm starting to wonder if the media aren't quite as dumb as we make out, and they do this on purpose to see who can get the biggest rise out of RMS. But then I remember that guy's sig about never blaming on malice when stupidity will do (or whatever)...
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
The part of suggesting you get help is so you stop wasting bandwidth on slashdot. In fact, so you stop wasting oxygen and life for people who actually appreciate the things that are good.
Post as angrily as you want, you are wrong and above everything stupid. The thing I dont understand about you (and your stereotypical type, oh boo hoo the world isn't fair so I hate everything.. yeah get a new bit, this was done out after vietnam) is you try to hard to get other people to give you attention and when you do you snap at them. So you avoid accountability for anything - they go on their way and you on yours. You may feel better, that's fine. But you are unfortunately so short-sided that you will never be able to understand the actual meaning of life.
And yeah, I do know the meaning of life. I know how to be happy. It's really pretty simple - but until you stop bitching about how hard it is when your father yells at your mother you are going to be just as clueless as ever and hateful. It's funny really, because I get a certain degree of entertainment out of you silly dumbass product of the baby-boomer generation - refer to The Eagle's "Get Over It" for more information on this.
You are pathetic, in the most primative sense because you can't even think of an original incentive as to why to feel miserable - you have to rip off other peoples excuses.
I gave you the suggestion for therapy because they do care, that is what they get paid to do - and yes, there are good therapists out there. I have never been to one, but those close to me have (and needed it).
If you think that you can truly vent and rant on slashdot, then it also mirrors life, don't shit in your home if you dont want to sit in it. I suppose that is probably over your head at this point.
Thank you for providing me with further proof that humanity is what makes life complex, and not life that makes humans complex.
Does your wife know about your diverse usage of the word fuck, as well as your angry tendancies. It may really be something you should look at - hence what happens when slashdot isn't around and she is the only one to snap at. Oh I know, I know. "I would never yell at her".. yet another canned response. You will, you are your father regardless of how you feel now. You have completed the cycle - thank you, come again.
Do the world a favor, and actually care about yourself instead of caring about people caring about you - and specifically do your wife and children (if you have them, if not children-to-be) the favor.
Thanks though, I was bored at work too.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
A much better way of challenging certain aspects of UCITA shrink-wrap license enforcement is to look at how parts of UCITA might in effect become a sort of State copyright law, and thus would be in conflict with the Federal Copyright Act. That is, to the extent that provisions of UCITA would make enforceable certain license terms which would be contrary to various limitations of copyright (such as fair use, first sale, right to backup, etc) those provisions would be preempted by Federal copyright and would be unenforceable in the particular case.
There may be some productive avenues to research in Federal consumer protection law, and I believe the FTC is pushing that angle.
Ed
"UCITA will cost you tax $$$ and hurt your high-tech economy"
than they would be to
"UCITA is unfair and screws the consumer"
Well, it looks like the old joke is no longer valid... We've found SOMETHING that lawyers just won't do!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
- How are they going to ban me of selling my copy of Age of Empires to my brother for $10?
- Word of mouth spreads quickly on the Internet, I can't wait to see how they are going to ban negative reviews
Laws have to be simple enough so people don't have to take their case to court everytime and pay a laywer some X amount of dollar by the hour. (But of course, laywers would love that) In fact, with more complex laws, the state is beginning to look like the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. (Clerks = Laywers, Cardinals = Senates, Big bad corporations = Big bad Feudal lords) There is simply no way that these laws can be upheld, and therefore they are waste of good trees...Just my 2c
INCORRECT
The world simply is. That you choose to experience it as a shit hole is your business -- but don't be so quick to generalize
Maybe you're right. Maybe I am delusional, and you're just sooo smart to see through it all. But if (1) you are so brilliant and (2) working for your dad is such a big problam, why do you go to work? In an economy with 4% unemployment, you don't have to be Einstien to figure out other solutions.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Their solution to the high cost of litigation: "We're always right and no one can ever sue us over anything!"
I mean, there's just no arguing with that kind of logic. If you give consumers any rights, they're likely to want those rights enforced in a court. Any Correct Thinking legislature should see the obvious threat the Business Interests.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
OT, but why the heck am I automatically getting 2 karma points by default when it used to be just 1 point?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Why, you might ask? Because I'm a tongue-in-cheek, obnixious kinda person, that's why. And, with what I've seen, I would think it'd be damn funny to see what others would write for their own, GPL'd GNUCITA...
(am I warped... it must be due to it being Monday and really FREAKIN' cold outside [yes - I'm a wuss])
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
All these discussions about licencing make me wonder if it is legal to give someone used software.
Example: I start using linux and therefore, have this windows pack arround, no longer usefull. Can I just give it to someone without any second thoughts?
you can rearrange the letters in 'Bill Gates' to spell: 'Legal Bits'? Just noticed that while Anagram crunching "uniform computer information transaction act" - more shortly.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
You forgot "(void*) for his terrible grammer"
who moderated this obvious troll to "insightful"?!?!?
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Those foes say that if UCITA is modified to require warranties, there had better be an exception for open-source efforts, whose software developers earn no money.
Indeed! the alternative sounds rather like trying to ban the concept of giving things away for free.
JoshuaTerradot
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
I'm suddenly reminded of Braveheart. Why do we need the nobels if we've fought the war thus far alone? Or something like that.
Anyway, any time that someone involved in big business says, "I'm on your side." I suddenly feel like I should just spin in circles to be sure they aren't just trying to find a way to distract me from turing around. I don't know, but I have yet to find an instance where you can really trust a business in any situation.
You think your big time?
You think your big time?
I'll kick your ass so hard you'll be unbuttoning your neck button to piss!
One question that I've always had about UCITA is how it can possibly be reasonable to manage software sales under any state law, much less try the nonsense approach that MS et. al. are trying under which the sale can be held to be under a state that has no apparent relevance to the sale. If I (a citizen and resident of California) buy software written by Microsoft (a Nevada corporation whose primary place of business is in Washington) through a local store, what in hell do the laws of Virginia or Maryland have to do with it? You could plausibly argue that the sale should be under California law, or less plausibly under Washington or Nevada law, but why should the laws of a state where none of the principles of the sale are involved have any relevance? If anything, this is the clearest possible case of interstate commerce and should be handled by a Federal, not a State law. Any plausible suggestions?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
In the end the end they are just selling "product" like every other company in the world trying to make a profit etc. SO what if some one complaines or does not want to buy it or has bad reveiw, Make a better product, in the software sence, write better code. There are too many laws and "acts" as it is, TOO MUCH RED TAPE and the only thing this will do (except in poland) is make free software look that much better. Open source everything could benifit from this, (as long as the free software was easy to get/). If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
It's getting to the point where these megacorps are acting as if they're entitled to this kind of obscene profit, claiming legal protection for every cent they make. What ever happened to competition? What ever happened to earning your profits?
AOL and Microsoft are in businesses where the incremental cost of their products are practically nil compared to the cost of the first item. I know I don't have to tell you how obscene the pricing structures are for MS products. THAT should be the subject of uniform legislation...
In FY2000, MS Office accounted for $7 billion in sales for MSFT, just under a third of their total revenue, and the new release (Office 2000) was on the market only a fraction of the year. That's immense! And don't try to convince me it cost anywhere near $7 billion to write MS Office 2000. (And if it really, truly did, then Bill is hiring the wrong programmers.) For chrissake, if you're selling $23 billion worth of goods and services and making $2.2 billion in profit per quarter, you don't need a law to make it any easier to turn a profit. Hell, a lot of people are claiming that the rest of us need laws to protect us from you. But then, we don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to influence legislators with.
Go away, Bill, Steve, and Andrew. Go spend your money on some island nation somewhere where you can make your own laws. Leave ours alone.
I can see the fnords!
In April of this year, I was told for the first time ever that if I wanted to rent, I had to renew my account. I had held an account here for 7 years and had never been told I needed to renew my membership. I complained, but the clerk was just a register jockey and had no authority to override anything. So I paid the $3 fee and filled out a new contract... and before I signed it, I read the small print. Guess what the first item was?
"By signing this agreement, I enter into a lifetime contract with..." [emphasis added].
I hit the roof... but what am I going to do? Take them to court over a $3 service charge? But at least I have a theoretical avenue of recourse. If UCITA passes, MSFT will behave the same way, but you won't even have the option of taking them to court.
I can see the fnords!
From the article:
More recently, the plan has been attacked by Richard Stallman, a pioneer in the "open-source" movement to develop free software in collaboration...
Someone just hit a bees' nest with a stick...
Do you have ESP?
The article is very interesting but I don't see many speed bumps ahead other than a million court disputes over which version of UCITA is right. Either way its bad of OSS simply because in on these battles it will be the Open-Source side that gets slapped with the gag-orders and injunctions that keep us from doing business.
Stand up for your rights, fight UCITA when it comes to your state.
Never knock on Death's door:
The Anti-Blog
It's absolutely amazing the nonsense that comes out of these people. A particularly revealing quote from the article:
IOW they claim that it's too expensive to require them to give consumers honest information about their products. At the same time, they want to be able to put terms into their licenses that would make it impossible for third parties to review their products honestly. So much for being able to make informed purchasing decisions, which any economist will tell you is essential for an effective marketplace. At the same time, they want the right to refuse refunds to consumers who do buy the software and then find out how useless it is.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I am an attorney, and I do a lot of negotiation over software licenses. I used to always insert a clause that says:
The Parties hereby agree that this Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.
Now, that clause says:
The Parties hereby agree that this Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods nor the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act or any implementation thereof.
I have yet to hear any objection to this language during negotiations. I am hoping this practice of negating UCITA becomes as common as negating the UN convention (i.e. very common).
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
In this case, a bad law (UCITA) is meeting resistance because other big bad comapnaies (eg. Boeing, General Motors) don't want to be on the short end of the stick.
Only Marland and Virginia have passed UCITA so far -- so keep fighting, UCITA is far from being the law of the land, and we have allies on this one
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
My company recently enacted a "code of conduct", under which "software piracy" is not allowed. My section manager requested me to "buy a licence" for a Linux server I had installed. No matter how I tried to explain the GPL to him, he wouldn't budge, so I had to order a Linux distro. I hope he's satisfied now.
IIRC, I bought several software packages, mostly in the early 90s, that pulled exactly that dirty trick (By opening this packaging, you implicitly and irrevocably agree to the license statement enclosed in this packaging and are bound by it). The only problem was, that wasn't legal then. What UCITA does is make that kind of dirty trick legal. It is different from install time EULAs, however: those, you can read, and I'm certain many corporations have a team of lawyers go over them. It's just the typical slashdotter doesn't.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
the UCITA is hardly Uniform if each state implements and interprets it differently.
:(
as always, the lawyers win
Amorphis
This reeks of microsoft trying to gain more power yet again. Think about it, The want to regulate how software is bought, oh come on now thats almost as bad as taxing free software. In the end the end they are just selling "product" like every other company in the world trying to make a profit etc. SO what if some one complaines or does not want to buy it or has bad reveiw, Make a better product, in the software sence, write better code. There are too many laws and "acts" as it is, TOO MUCH RED TAPE and the only thing this will do (except in poland) is make free software look that much better. Open source everything could benifit from this, (as long as the free software was easy to get/).
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
I just hope the law here isn't struck down for interfering with interstate commerce.
BTW: That site wins the record for the most real estate taken up by the sidebar. Less than 50% of the screen contained actual content.
Actually, this is remarkably similar to the strident protests of used car sellers, automobile manufacturers, etc. when the disclosure laws for those industries were passed. As usual, the sky failed to fall and business seems to be continuing just fine.
Arne Larsen, director of information systems at Horizon Blue Cross in Newark, N.J., said his company's software buyers have already rejected one contract clause that would have invoked UCITA and will keep on fighting it when it reappears. "We might as well start building the ramparts around us," he said.
It's nice to know that we have intelligent companies located in Newark, NJ.
Don't mess with the Bricks!
-slams
I just hope the law here isn't struck down for interfering with interstate commerce.
What are you referring to?
Hoping the existing laws in Iowa aren't struck down?
If there's no federal law forcing UCITA (and there isn't), then interstate commerce doesn't come into play. (Well, there is the whole states-shall-respect-each-others'-laws thing, but that doesn't apply here -- UCITA should only take effect if it's law in the purchasing party's state. I think. Though IANAL, I spend several hours a week listening to one yammer -- and that's not counting when I watch Law & Order).
Btw, if the sidebar is that big, your resolution is too low.
takes advantage of the UCITA. I can't believe it. I guess the suits got to them, too...
Kind of raises my confidence in this nation's academics when lawyers will walk out of this type of power play.
Go Lakers!
It is nice to see that the good guys are prevailing. But it is a measure of the good guys' lack of forsight/resources that this battle is fought in our territory. Had the UCITA been proposed by a liberty minded organization, we'd still have the same fight but AOWintel would be on the defensive. Now that would be sweet, wouldn't it?
There should be a credible organization that provides model law from a perspective informed by freedom and consumer protection.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
He put a lot of thought and work into the Gnu licenses that are pretty much at the heart of both movements and he produced or midwived the early software that made those licenses so well known and respected. Although I think that it's accurate to name him as a pioneer for the Open Source movement, I think that it was improper to not identify him as a spokesperson for the Free Software movement.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
My company purchased some software at the beginning of the summer. We are in Maryland. State number two to ratify the UCITA, I believe (after Virginia). The vendor insisted on having the purchase occur under NJ law (which at the time hadn't passed UCITA. Not sure of current status).
BTW, the license still sucks. I argued against signing it at all, but was overruled by higher ups.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
No. The way things are set up, any admision of fault will ruin you. This is not just a problem for software companies, it's a problem for hospitals, construction firms and, well, everyone. There is a reason all software comes with a boilerplate, "this is not fit for any particular purpose" clause.
The problem is that the law allows for anyone to sue anyone else for unlimited damages. How can you blame people for covering their asses?
Bust Microsoft for trust violations and predatory behavior, but don't try to sue them because their crappy work did not solve all your problems like they prommised. Responsibility begins with you. Microsoft ends when people quit using thier junk.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What's that? This is the first time I hear about it. Is it even worse than UCITA?
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
All we need is for a similar challenge to UCITA in Virgina or other states to prove that it challenges federal interstate commerce -- the way I've heard the proponents of UCITA talking was to get it passed by a majority of states prior for such a suit to take hold as to show that a majority of the states want that, as opposed to a single state passing the law. If it can be defeated in a court of law now, while only a couple states have passed it, then the only chance for it to become law is via federal law, and the FTC would be watching the passing of that very very carefully, since they are already critical of the software industry.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I recently bought a new video card that came packaged with a driver/apps CD-ROM in a sealed envelope. The seal said something to the effect of: "By breaking this seal you agree to the licensing statement enclosed." The licensing statement itself was printed on a piece of paper inside the sealed envelope! (Luckily I don't live in Maryland so the license isn't legally binding.)
Although, I suppose that's not much different than those install-time EULAs where everyone just clicks the "Agree" button without reading.
-
So, somebody outside of a few editors at InfoWorld and the Slashdot community has finally figured out what an astonishingly bad piece of legislation UCITA is.
It's about freaking time.
See Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg.
It is a clear case of interstate commerce that should be regulated by Federal law
Traditionally, virtually all contract law has been governed by state law.
Applying the laws of a state in which none of the transaction participants resides is ridiculous, and likely unconstitutional.
Actually this is routine, has been done for years, and it has been well-settled that there are no commerce law impediments. You may contract for anything you want. Although less common, it is permissible to use INCOTERMS, or the laws of foreign nations if you are so inclined. (Native state law may govern certain implied terms, such as implied covenant of good faith and rules against unconsionability, under Choice of law rules, however).
Reveal contract terms AFTER the sale?
Same as common law and UCC. See Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg
Forbid publication of critical reviews?
Avoid fixing software bugs?
Forbid resale of used software?
Please cite the provisions of the UCC which you believe make this possible, or why you think it was impossible to impose such terms under UCITA. The same impositions (Preemption clause of the copyright Act and perhaps unconsionability provisions) exist under the status quo as per UCITA.
Correct. And then the Legislature is required to revisit the issue. So it's not law YET, and we still have a little time. . . .
So by asking for the absurd they are sure to get at least some of the restrictions they want and can build from there.
:)
As foolish as this may sound, I've proposed many networks and server configurations this way. Propose to them absolutely overkill, with the thought that they won't accept it. We 'Bargain' down to a reasonable configuration (the one I had in mind all along). It's amazing how PHB's snap up an idea when they think it's theirs.
This is a win/win (no pun intended)situation for the companies pushing UCITA. They know that the laws if passed would never stand up to challenges in court and would end up being modified. But then the modified versions of the law would have firmer legal ground based on the original court challenges. So by asking for the absurd they are sure to get at least some of the restrictions they want and can build from there.
If Godzilla did not exist, man would have had to create him.
I'll buy your melons, if they're reasonably priced. I take every chance I can to support the Chosen.
What's with the moderators? Are they all members of the KKK, or merely Nazis? Bah, their clear anti-Semitic bias sickens me. Better smarten up before the samurai calls down the Moussad on your ass.
Our ideals seem foreign to them just as theirs do to us. However much we need these laws, we must realized they will stand up for all mindsets, just not the "better" one.
----
Mind you, it is likely to pass implementation of UCITA next year, but it's not law in Virginia, yet. . .
From the article:
"
More recently, the plan has been attacked by Richard Stallman, a pioneer in the "open-source" movement to develop free software in collaboration, and by Red Hat and other companies that sell or support Linux, a computer operating system that is available at no charge on the Internet.
"
Kind of illustrates why Stallman is so picky about distinction between 'open-source' and 'free software'.
Free software > Open Source. Free software != Open source.
-Laxitive
They called him a pioneer of the Open Source movement. You know how much he hates that. They're in for a tough few days of having Free Software explained to them ...
-- Arm yourself when the Frog God smiles.
One major issue is that UCITA would allow software distributors to reveal the terms of their license agreements after a sale.
Just reveal the terms of your purchase after the sale as well. . . "And as a purchaser I reserve the right to disassemble everything and bill the seller for any legal bills associated with this disassembly"