Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:27:56 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1998 at 15:50:55, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On July 22, 1998 at 14:22:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>You don't get to "interpret" the law. Your responsibility is to "obey" the >>law. > >This is the main issue. We do interpret the law. We do not necessarily obey the >law. > >Einstein: "Don't ever do anything against your consciousness, even if the State >demands it from you." > >You do not obey the law if the law forces you to put "inferior races" in gas >chambers. > >Pirating software (again: I am against it)is not such an extreme case. Still, in >all laws, all morals, there is room for interpretation. Black amd white moral >stuff seldom works. > >Enrique While I don't disagree completely, try this: "This License Agreement permits you to use one copy of the Microsoft Software program(s) included in this package (the "SOFTWARE") on a single computer. The software is "in use" when it is loaded into temporary memory (RAM) or installed into permanent memory (e.g. hard disk, CD ROM, or other storage devices.) However, installation on a network server shall not be considered as "use" so long as you have a separate license for each computer on which the software is distributed." That's right out of the microsoft stuff packed in every CD they distribute. And I don't see *any* room for interpretation there, particularly any interpretation that says "it is ok to give copies to my friends." The purpose of legal language is to remove *any* potential "interpretation" problems, by being so specific that only one meaning is possible... Clearly, Microsoft expects you to have a license for each machine that is going to execute the program. And obtaining a license means buying the product. How to reconcile that with giving copies to friends?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.