Are. You. Insane? You *never*, *ever* need a right to review and comment on anything. You have it. And with like anything, thats been purchased on good conscients, but the seller hadn't the necessary rights to sell it, only a judge force you to return it, no one else.
That Comic Sans in Ubuntu isn't Comic Sans. Look at the "a", it's completely different than in the windows screenshot. Seems as if it's been substituted, either because it hasn't been properly installed or maybe something in fontconfig.
For most users, disk integrity IS the number one priority
Sorry, but no, it isn't. You will hear them screaming utter murder, when their OS needs half an hour to boot, and a file copy only goes with a few kB/s.
Users want integrity AND speed. Most won't even know there's a difference. So it's always a trade off between safety and speed. At least til we get copy-on-write filesystems and fast, big SSDs on a large scale.
And you can also bet, that putting it in the fine print isn't enough. Costs have to be stated upfront and easily visible or else no contract can be entered.
Putting it in the fine print at the bottom of the page or putting it in the EULA is a SCAM, illegal and not enforcable in any way.
Passport flopped because no one wanted Microsoft to have data on every single point of your life. That was what passport was: Everyone had to authenticate with Microsoft, Mircosoft stored all information, Microsoft choose who got what information.
OpenID is fully decentralized, *you* choose whom to give what information, every site uses its own passwords and as above story shows, that it's far from dead.
-- a legal system that can't differentiate between "don't sell this" and "pay me" is defunct There isn't a difference between "don't sell this" and "pay me". Both are contractual agreements. Nothing more, nothing less.
-- it's been hundreds of years since the law was designed Irrelevant. Either it functions today or it doesn't. You have to have to actually say what's different today than when the law was drafted.
-- it takes two days to record my music, and two hours to ship it to you, but it takes weeks to get that contract negotiated Yeah, that pesky fact, that both sides have to agree to the same terms. A pity I can't just bind you to a contract on my terms, and my terms alone.
-- maybe GPL-style standardized agreements that can be accepted or declined upon delivery would be a decent idea Boilerplate contracts have also existed for a long time. Nothing new with that. But like with everything, terms have to be negotiated before goods change hands.
-- I don't know, I'm just saying that the legal issue has become the biggest part of the innovation cycle -- and that's a problem. That's been always been the case, not that I don't agree with you. But a one sided, legal binding contract isn't a solution; it's a pandora's box that I certainly wouldn't want let loose on the world.
Coercion doesn't need a gun. The contract has already been made. I have all the necessary rights to use the software, but non the less I suddenly have to agree to additional restrictions to use the software, without getting anything in return.
And of course I don't have to agree to the warranty of merchantability. That's the minimum I get, if nothing else is negotiated beforehand. And, as another poster pointed out, the sale of good is finished, once money and goods have exchanged hands. The EULA would between me and a, for me, completely arbitrary third party, with which I have absolutely no relationship.
The Copyright statutes explicitly spell out your right to make a copy for normal operations of the program. If this weren't so we wouldn't have this discussion, as click-wrap licenses would then be clearly enforceable.
In regard to german contract laws:
What I read about US law they're quite similar. But a big, glaring difference is ProCD v. Zeidenberg. Not the laws. A really unfortunate difference, IMHO, as EULAs don't meet the most basic requirements of contracts. No negotiation, no offer, just coercion to force a "Yes" click.
You're right, Wikipedia is more authoritative to me as the US law, because I'm german. (wink, wink, nudge nudge) And german law makes it absolutely, unmistakably clear, that terms after the contract has been agreed upon, have to be made under consideration and all courts have upheld this. There is no such thing with normal EULAs, as I have already all rights to use the software and nothing is offered in return to the agreement to the EULA.
You're right, that in the US ProCD v. Zeidenberg does lay a different ground, and all cases that might contradict this, are more for shrink-warp than click-wrap licenses. The objection to these are the ones I made (for example Klocek v. Gateway, Inc.). Personally I can't find what's the difference between click-wrap and shrink-wrap, at least in principle.
As for the GPL:
The GPL isn't an EULA, as I don't have to agree to it to use the software. I have to agree on some terms to copy and distribute it, and the only one under which this is allowed, is the GPL.
I thought it was common sense, that you can't change the contract after the fact, which took place when the merchant took the money and that that they can sell you something but claim it's something different. But well, there's warranty of merchantability for the latter and any topicaboutcontracts for the former.
No, I paid for the copy of the software. I was marketed for use, not as a decorative paperweight. If I buy something I can be sure that it's fit the claimed purpose. No strings attached, but if there are, it has to be disclosed before the contract takes place. (Well, that's true in any sane country, like, oh, everywhere. Even the US)
Slashdot Mirror
To keep this analogy:
How long do you think that pile of shit remains, when a thousand eyes lay upon it, in comparison to the shit locked up in a closed box?
Are. You. Insane? You *never*, *ever* need a right to review and comment on anything. You have it. And with like anything, thats been purchased on good conscients, but the seller hadn't the necessary rights to sell it, only a judge force you to return it, no one else.
That Comic Sans in Ubuntu isn't Comic Sans. Look at the "a", it's completely different than in the windows screenshot. Seems as if it's been substituted, either because it hasn't been properly installed or maybe something in fontconfig.
Sorry, but no, it isn't. You will hear them screaming utter murder, when their OS needs half an hour to boot, and a file copy only goes with a few kB/s.
Users want integrity AND speed. Most won't even know there's a difference. So it's always a trade off between safety and speed. At least til we get copy-on-write filesystems and fast, big SSDs on a large scale.
And you can also bet, that putting it in the fine print isn't enough. Costs have to be stated upfront and easily visible or else no contract can be entered.
Putting it in the fine print at the bottom of the page or putting it in the EULA is a SCAM, illegal and not enforcable in any way.
Not allowed, but filed and granted regardless.
So by that definition: do I have a right not to be annoyed?
Arrgh, that should read: only your OpenID provider has your password and it's never shared with anyone.
Sorry about that complete fuckup
Passport flopped because no one wanted Microsoft to have data on every single point of your life. That was what passport was: Everyone had to authenticate with Microsoft, Mircosoft stored all information, Microsoft choose who got what information.
OpenID is fully decentralized, *you* choose whom to give what information, every site uses its own passwords and as above story shows, that it's far from dead.
Sorry, I slipped there. That was german law again. The other points remain.
Coercion doesn't need a gun. The contract has already been made. I have all the necessary rights to use the software, but non the less I suddenly have to agree to additional restrictions to use the software, without getting anything in return.
And of course I don't have to agree to the warranty of merchantability. That's the minimum I get, if nothing else is negotiated beforehand. And, as another poster pointed out, the sale of good is finished, once money and goods have exchanged hands. The EULA would between me and a, for me, completely arbitrary third party, with which I have absolutely no relationship.
The Copyright statutes explicitly spell out your right to make a copy for normal operations of the program. If this weren't so we wouldn't have this discussion, as click-wrap licenses would then be clearly enforceable.
In regard to german contract laws:
What I read about US law they're quite similar. But a big, glaring difference is ProCD v. Zeidenberg. Not the laws. A really unfortunate difference, IMHO, as EULAs don't meet the most basic requirements of contracts. No negotiation, no offer, just coercion to force a "Yes" click.
You're right, Wikipedia is more authoritative to me as the US law, because I'm german. (wink, wink, nudge nudge) And german law makes it absolutely, unmistakably clear, that terms after the contract has been agreed upon, have to be made under consideration and all courts have upheld this. There is no such thing with normal EULAs, as I have already all rights to use the software and nothing is offered in return to the agreement to the EULA.
You're right, that in the US ProCD v. Zeidenberg does lay a different ground, and all cases that might contradict this, are more for shrink-warp than click-wrap licenses. The objection to these are the ones I made (for example Klocek v. Gateway, Inc.). Personally I can't find what's the difference between click-wrap and shrink-wrap, at least in principle.
As for the GPL:
The GPL isn't an EULA, as I don't have to agree to it to use the software. I have to agree on some terms to copy and distribute it, and the only one under which this is allowed, is the GPL.
I thought it was common sense, that you can't change the contract after the fact, which took place when the merchant took the money and that that they can sell you something but claim it's something different. But well, there's warranty of merchantability for the latter and any topic about contracts for the former.
No, I paid for the copy of the software. I was marketed for use, not as a decorative paperweight. If I buy something I can be sure that it's fit the claimed purpose. No strings attached, but if there are, it has to be disclosed before the contract takes place. (Well, that's true in any sane country, like, oh, everywhere. Even the US)
The fact, that I already paid for this particular piece of software?