FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Xubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-25-2012, 01:48 PM
The Wanderer
 
Default Installation

On 09/23/2012 12:42 PM, Celejar wrote:


On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:57:35 +0300 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
wrote:


On Jo, 20 sep 12, 06:31:52, lee wrote:



Why not? I haven't signed any agreement with them.


You agreed to the EULA on install or first boot, same thing.


Additionally, IIUC, Microsoft retains copyright, and only grants the OEM and
you various rights to use and distribute the software. You, the end user, are
granted by the OEM (in accordance with a right Microsoft has granted *it*)
the right to use the software,


Why do you need to be granted that right?

What reserves the "right to use" to Microsoft and its grantees? Copyright
doesn't, as far as I can tell; copyright just reserves the right to create
copies (and/or authorize the creation of the same), not any rights relating to
the actual *use* of an already-created copy. (Aside from the very limited areas
of "public performance" and "public display".)

The only potential angle I can see is the fact that, in the case of software,
you actually do have to copy it (at least into RAM) to be able to use it. I
personally think that that's a flaw in the design of copyright law - one rooted
in the fact that software as we now know it hadn't remotely been thought of when
copyright was being invented, one which is being abused to extend the monopoly
granted by copyright into areas which it was never intended to cover, and one
which therefore badly needs to be closed.

As far as I can tell, the entire "right to use" part of the EULA is essentially
a whole-cloth power grab on the part of the people who invent such EULAs, with
no real basis in the underlying monopolies granted by e.g. copyright law.


but not to resell it (except as part of the sale of the entire computer). You
therefore simply have no right to resell it, and any customer of yours has
acquires no right to use it.


Why not? The right to resell is long-established, as part of the doctrine of
first sale; as long as selling it doesn't involve creating an additional copy,
copyright itself does not AFAIK grant any authority to restrict sale.

Unless the grant of monopoly of distribution would cover it, but again, I think
the doctrine of first sale has long established (at least in the US) that that
monopoly doesn't extend to resale.

The only possible argument I can think of is the standard "it's not sold, it's
licensed" line of reasoning, which I think is purely and entirely a power grab -
an attempt to get around restrictions like the doctrine of first sale (as well
as to claim monopolies not granted by copyright or other IP law, e.g. the "use
rights" monopoly cited above). As such, I think that argument is bunk, and if
it's ever been accepted in court - which I think it unfortunately has - it needs
to be overturned.


(Shouldn't this discussion go off-list, if it's going to continue?)

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 5061B63F.7010409@fastmail.fm">http://lists.debian.org/5061B63F.7010409@fastmail.fm
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:14 PM
John Hasler
 
Default Installation

The Wanderer writes:
> The only potential angle I can see is the fact that, in the case of
> software, you actually do have to copy it (at least into RAM) to be
> able to use it. I personally think that that's a flaw in the design of
> copyright law

USA copyright law explicitly grants that right.

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117>
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87a9we2nqt.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org">http://lists.debian.org/87a9we2nqt.fsf@thumper.dhh.gt.org
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:01 PM
The Wanderer
 
Default Installation

On 09/25/2012 10:14 AM, John Hasler wrote:


The Wanderer writes:


The only potential angle I can see is the fact that, in the case of
software, you actually do have to copy it (at least into RAM) to be able to
use it. I personally think that that's a flaw in the design of copyright
law


USA copyright law explicitly grants that right.

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117>


Thanks. That's very good to know.

From the wording of the statute, it even seems to cover the aspect I didn't
explicitly mention, of the need to copy when installing (since very few programs
nowadays are delivered in a run-without-installing form).

That seems to undermine the use-rights aspect of the EULA even more than I]
thought.

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 5061C73F.8040101@fastmail.fm">http://lists.debian.org/5061C73F.8040101@fastmail.fm
 
Old 09-25-2012, 03:25 PM
Celejar
 
Default Installation

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:48:47 -0400
The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 09/23/2012 12:42 PM, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:57:35 +0300 Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jo, 20 sep 12, 06:31:52, lee wrote:
>
> >>> Why not? I haven't signed any agreement with them.
> >>
> >> You agreed to the EULA on install or first boot, same thing.
> >
> > Additionally, IIUC, Microsoft retains copyright, and only grants the OEM and
> > you various rights to use and distribute the software. You, the end user, are
> > granted by the OEM (in accordance with a right Microsoft has granted *it*)
> > the right to use the software,
>
> Why do you need to be granted that right?
>
> What reserves the "right to use" to Microsoft and its grantees? Copyright
> doesn't, as far as I can tell; copyright just reserves the right to create
> copies (and/or authorize the creation of the same), not any rights relating to
> the actual *use* of an already-created copy. (Aside from the very limited areas
> of "public performance" and "public display".)

US Copyright law does restrict distribution, in addition to the actual
making of copies. I don't know exactly what the law says about the use
of a copyrighted work that has been illegally transferred to you.

...

> > but not to resell it (except as part of the sale of the entire computer). You
> > therefore simply have no right to resell it, and any customer of yours has
> > acquires no right to use it.
>
> Why not? The right to resell is long-established, as part of the doctrine of
> first sale; as long as selling it doesn't involve creating an additional copy,
> copyright itself does not AFAIK grant any authority to restrict sale.

As I documented in another post in this thread, under US (as opposed
to EU) law, the FSD doesn't apply to software that is licensed
rather than sold:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
http://www.siia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=339&I temid=352
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/magic-words-trump-user-rights-ninth-circuit-ruling

> Unless the grant of monopoly of distribution would cover it, but again, I think
> the doctrine of first sale has long established (at least in the US) that that
> monopoly doesn't extend to resale.
>
> The only possible argument I can think of is the standard "it's not sold, it's
> licensed" line of reasoning, which I think is purely and entirely a power grab -
> an attempt to get around restrictions like the doctrine of first sale (as well
> as to claim monopolies not granted by copyright or other IP law, e.g. the "use
> rights" monopoly cited above). As such, I think that argument is bunk, and if
> it's ever been accepted in court - which I think it unfortunately has - it needs
> to be overturned.

Yes, it has been accepted by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States has denied
cert, so it's the law of the land (at least under the jurisdiction of
the Ninth Circuit).

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120925112559.fc6bf40e.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120925112559.fc6bf40e.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 09-25-2012, 05:44 PM
"Weaver"
 
Default Installation

On Tue, September 25, 2012 6:02 am, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 03:25 AM, Weaver wrote:
>
>> On Mon, September 24, 2012 10:33 pm, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 02:15:23PM -0700, Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, September 17, 2012 8:11 am, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>>>>> Patches are still being accepted against d-i, but hurry.
>>>>
>>>> Done!
>>>
>>> Ummm, can't see it. What is the bugnumber?
>>
>> Joined the list and emailed it in.
>>
>> Tried bug-report but it wouldn't accept terms like 'installer'
>> installation'
>> etc., with a continuous feedback of 'no such package', so I tried
>> 'Other',
>> which appeared to be the only open option, and that wasn't accepted
>> either,
>> so I just went to the debian-boot list, which is apparently who handle
>> it.
>
> Did you try the 'debian-installer' package? (That being what 'd-i' is
> short
> for.)

Didn't even think of it.

I mean, I'm hardly going to be reporting a bug with the Suse installer on
a Debian list, am I?

Sometimes life is just a bit too technical.
Regards,

Weaver

--
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
-- Thomas Paine

Registered Linux User: 554515



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 481eff973bcc50ad70c535d4dfe3f6bc.squirrel@fulvetta .riseup.net">http://lists.debian.org/481eff973bcc50ad70c535d4dfe3f6bc.squirrel@fulvetta .riseup.net
 
Old 09-25-2012, 09:29 PM
lee
 
Default Installation

Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> writes:

> In this context, any problem with the definition of "copy" is
> irrelevant; you cannot legally (under US law) transfer *any* version of
> the software, "original" or "copy", to anyone else without the
> copyright holder's permission, as you have not purchased the software
> but merely licensed it.

You were talking about copies. Anyway, I didn't sign any license for
the software, so I haven't licensed it. What I have is a license to use
the software which I didn't even want to have, and anyone can buy it.
If the law says that I can't sell it without the permission of whoever
is allowed to issue the license in the first place, then the law should
require the issuer to buy the license back from me or allow me to sell
it.

Imagine you bought a car that has software in it and the car is built in
such a way that it doesn't function without the software --- which
unfortunately is the case for pretty much every car built somewhat
recently. You probably have a license to use that software. You can't
ever legally sell the car unless you remove the software first.

Now go to a junkyard and ask them for an ECM of some particular car.
I'm sure they'll sell it to you if they have it, with all the software
included.


--
Debian testing amd64


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87haqlhju7.fsf@yun.yagibdah.de">http://lists.debian.org/87haqlhju7.fsf@yun.yagibdah.de
 
Old 09-27-2012, 02:15 AM
Celejar
 
Default Installation

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:29:52 +0200
lee <lee@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:

> Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In this context, any problem with the definition of "copy" is
> > irrelevant; you cannot legally (under US law) transfer *any* version of
> > the software, "original" or "copy", to anyone else without the
> > copyright holder's permission, as you have not purchased the software
> > but merely licensed it.
>
> You were talking about copies. Anyway, I didn't sign any license for
> the software, so I haven't licensed it. What I have is a license to use
> the software which I didn't even want to have, and anyone can buy it.
> If the law says that I can't sell it without the permission of whoever
> is allowed to issue the license in the first place, then the law should
> require the issuer to buy the license back from me or allow me to sell
> it.

I don't know about what the law should say, but what it (US law) does
say is pretty clear.

> Imagine you bought a car that has software in it and the car is built in
> such a way that it doesn't function without the software --- which
> unfortunately is the case for pretty much every car built somewhat
> recently. You probably have a license to use that software. You can't
> ever legally sell the car unless you remove the software first.
>
> Now go to a junkyard and ask them for an ECM of some particular car.
> I'm sure they'll sell it to you if they have it, with all the software
> included.

I think we've pretty much exhausted this topic, so I'm going to just
let it drop.

Celejar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120926221522.8726db83.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120926221522.8726db83.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 09-29-2012, 03:48 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default Installation

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:02:33AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 02:56 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:33:02PM +0200, lee wrote:
> >
> >>They even have begun to use different keys to get into the BIOS quite some
> >>time ago.
> >
> >Really? Have you got a source for that allegation?
>
> http://www.mydigitallife.info/comprehensive-list-of-how-key-to-press-to-access-bios-for-various-oem-and-computer-systems/
> http://www.cpucare.net/Hardware/BIOS/Access_BIOS.htm
> http://michaelstevenstech.com/bios_manufacturer.htm
> http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000192.htmhttp://pcsupport.about.com/od/fixtheproblem/a/biosaccess_pc.htm
>
> All from the first page of Google hits for 'BIOS key'. Not all of them support
> the "quite some time ago" part of the claim (though at least one indicates that

Well, the "quite some time ago" was what Lee was alleging.
Also the phrase "They even have begun to use ..." AFAIU, there has
always been a miriad of keys being used, I wasn't aware that they
were starting to use even more.

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120929154813.GB3879@tal
 
Old 09-29-2012, 04:01 PM
Chris Bannister
 
Default Installation

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:06:05AM -0400, Neal Murphy wrote:
> System installation should be as automated as is possible. In fact, the
> installer should ask as few questions as possible.

The trouble is there are many different desirable setups depending on
what you want to use it for. I wouldn't like an installer which asked a
whole lot of English questions about what I wanted to use it for,
especially when the person writing the questions has no skills in
technical writing, and then went on to do a whole lot of operations
which in the end, was not what I meant. If I don't want RAID then I
don't want RAID, no ifs buts or but you need it.

--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120929160151.GC3879@tal
 
Old 10-01-2012, 01:42 PM
Gabor Urban
 
Default Installation

Hi guys,

it seems to be a long dispute, and I have read arguments like these in
the last 10 years...
I do not take up the topic normally, but I have read new things. So I
feel I have to write my points.

1. An average user should not install any OS. Therefore it is not
relevant how complex is to install an OS. I guess, most of the
performance and security issues of M$ system arise from this aspect.
There is no need and no possibilty to fine-tune it. OTOH experimenting
should be wellcome.....

2. If a user is willing to take to pains to install an OS, she or he
deserves to have all information to set up a system properly required.
Out-of-the-box installers are no up to this requirement most of the
time, if these are not designed to give users maximum insight and
flexibilty. I have never seen M$ to be this quality.

3. The role of M$ is quite unique: a large number of people know the
problems with it, even in the managing boards. But they know the
actual prices only, do not have any estimation how much money the
loose on the quality problems, the need of frequent hardware updates,
etc. And they stick to the notion of "support" they pay for even
knowing it does not solve the problems properly in time... :-(


2012/9/29 Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz>:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:06:05AM -0400, Neal Murphy wrote:
>> System installation should be as automated as is possible. In fact, the
>> installer should ask as few questions as possible.
>
> The trouble is there are many different desirable setups depending on
> what you want to use it for. I wouldn't like an installer which asked a
> whole lot of English questions about what I wanted to use it for,
> especially when the person writing the questions has no skills in
> technical writing, and then went on to do a whole lot of operations
> which in the end, was not what I meant. If I don't want RAID then I
> don't want RAID, no ifs buts or but you need it.
>
> --
> "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
> who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
> oppressing." --- Malcolm X
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120929160151.GC3879@tal
>



--
Linux is like a wigwam: no Gates, no Windows and an Apache inside.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAL=1hhwLp=OGvuPrJG1=1=1NTMT_EM7OM-bMrwKyJi_mU55SFA@mail.gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:04 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org