[PL] PL2005 Ware Issues

[Roger Johansson]

They are free to download (legally) for anyone, no matter if he has
Windows or not. But only people who have bought Windows have any use
for them. If he _can_ use it he will use it legally, because he has
bought Windows.

There is no reason to get into the finer legal technicalities for us as
freeware users, or creators of a freeware list.
We are not lawyers, or judges, we are freeware users.

The simple facts are:

It is a program which is available for free. For all practical purposes
it is freeware, just like all other freeware windows programs.

Yes, you need Windows to use it, but you need Windows to use most
programs we talk about.

You also need a certain part of Windows to download and install it, if
you do it the normal way, but that is the same for several other freeware
programs. We need IE to install several freeware programs, some made by
MS, some made by others.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

To sum up:

»Q«, I fully agree with your post. (I just re-read my follow-up and got
the impression that one could think, I would not. - From the diction of
my post.)

Sorry. It has been a long day... :-(

BeAr

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

We all have to have valid licences for Windows to use any windows
programs, freeware or not.

It doesn't matter to the end user what the wording is in a
specific license text as long as you still need to have a valid
Windows license to use the program.

It's not a matter of use of OE depending on having a valid Windows
licence. The OE licence /is/ the Windows licence, which is sold to
you. You can't use OE legally without a licence, and that licence is
sold to you.

The rest of your case is just legal mumbo jumbo which could maybe
interest people who study law and want to become lawyers.

Or interest people who want to sell software or people who want to
decide whether something is sold or given away for free.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Let's say. . .

You go to a car dealership and the salesman tells you that Chevrolet
will "give" you a spare tire if you purchase one of their cars. You buy
a Chevrolet and the salesmen gives you the address of a warehouse. You
go there and get your tire.

The warehouse doesn't have a watchman. Anyone can get a tire. Someone
else *doesn't* buy a Chevrolet but does go to the warehouse and gets a
tire.

Then they would be stealing it.

Are both tires legally obtained?
Nope.

Does it make a difference legally if
the second person doesn't own a Chevrolet and can't *use* the tire for
its intended purpose?

As the item isn't "freeware" how he/she uses it doesn't come into the
discussion.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:37:56 +0100, Bjorn Simonsen

THIRD PARY AUTHOR and USER. Third party authors
often say: "You need X to use my app". But hardly ever seen anyone
say: "You need a valid licence for X to use my app", but if they do -
well then of course shall I consider their app not freeware (and
of course if they otherwise cripple or in other ways make their app
not freeware any more).

Yep. My understanding is that a number of windows programs will work
on other platforms. OE cannot however be legally downloaded to be used
on other platforms unless one has purchased a windows licence. So it
certainly isn't freeware.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:59:47 +0100, "B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson"

Even if you could get IE/OE to run with Win95, Win95 OSR2, or WinNT 3.x,
*technically*, you would *not* be permitted to do so, by law.

If you dig a bit deeper, you'll find out part of the reasons for that
restriction. If you 'update' the older systems with the newer versions
of IE/OE you get a whole deal of the functionality for free, which MS
*sold* as updates to their newer OS versions.

< snip >

Correct. But that doesn't fit in with Mark's etc. "Anti MS conspiracy
theories so I guess he will choose to ignore those facts."

Regards, John.

 

[Roger Johansson]

OE cannot however be legally downloaded to be used
on other platforms

It doesn't exist for other platforms.

unless one has purchased a windows licence. So it
certainly isn't freeware.

Your argument may or may not be valid in strict legal sense, it has to be
tried in a court of law in the country of the user.

But we are helping people to find software which fit their needs,
software which they can download, install and use for free. As most
people here are using windows this program is for all practical purposes
freeware to these users.

Are we here to uphold US-american law, and here to find out what it
means, or are we here to help people to find programs they can legally
download and use for free?

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

It doesn't exist for other platforms.

Freeware written for Win32, even if there are no versions written for
other platforms, can be legally used on those other platforms.
That's not the case with OE.

Your argument may or may not be valid in strict legal sense, it
has to be tried in a court of law in the country of the user.

But we are helping people to find software which fit their needs,
software which they can download, install and use for free. As
most people here are using windows this program is for all
practical purposes freeware to these users.

Of course, once the users have purchased the OE, they can download,
install, and use the upgrades for it without paying even more for it.
But it's not the purpose of the PL to list commercial software that
people have already bought, despite how helpful you feel it would be
for those people.

Are we here to uphold US-american law, and here to find out what
it means, or are we here to help people to find programs they can
legally download and use for free?

The latter. But once you throw out legal considerations, including
the requirement that you must pay for the software, you can easily
make the case that any downloadable software is freeware.

 

[jo]

There is no reason to get into the finer legal technicalities for us as
freeware users, or creators of a freeware list.
We are not lawyers, or judges, we are freeware users.

The simple facts are:

It is a program which is available for free. For all practical purposes
it is freeware, just like all other freeware windows programs.

Yes, you need Windows to use it, but you need Windows to use most
programs we talk about.

You also need a certain part of Windows to download and install it, if
you do it the normal way, but that is the same for several other freeware
programs. We need IE to install several freeware programs, some made by
MS, some made by others.

Other examples of freeware therefore include:

Notepad
Windows Media Player
Front Page
Internet Explorer
Regedit
Paint
Etc...

 

[jo]

It doesn't exist for other platforms.


Your argument may or may not be valid in strict legal sense, it has to be
tried in a court of law in the country of the user.

But we are helping people to find software which fit their needs,
software which they can download, install and use for free. As most
people here are using windows this program is for all practical purposes
freeware to these users.

LOL.

On the one hand you say : 'It doesn't exist for other platforms', and
then you say 'we are helping people to find software which fit their
needs, software which they can download, install and use for free'

Those who have a need to download OE find they can't use it; those who
don't have a need to download it, find it to be a part of their OS...

 

[John Fitzsimons]

<news:[email protected]>:

Freeware written for Win32, even if there are no versions written for
other platforms, can be legally used on those other platforms.
That's not the case with OE.

< snip >

That's pretty much what I said yesterday. Though you might have
expressed things better.

It seems that Roger isn't interested in the above facts. Nor is he
interested in "legally" downloading freeware. Apparently as OE is
American he thinks the EULA doesn't have to be complied with.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

John Fitzsimons <[email protected]> wrote:

Are we here to uphold US-american law, and here to find out what it
means, or are we here to help people to find programs they can legally
download and use for free?

If we don't abide by a software supplier's licence then we aren't
using it legally. Whether the program is American, or not, is
irrelevant.

Regards, John.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

So the difference is that the author in this case is microsoft.

I understand the feelings of those who hate Microsoft, Bill Gates or
Britney Spears. I know why people have so much anger in their hearts
and why they need to find suitable objects for their feelings.

Leaving Britney Spears aside, I wonder why the analogy doesn't apply to
SlimBrowser just to name one example. It can only run if IE is
installed. If IE is not installed, SlimBrowser cannot do anything at
all. Thus, without IE, it is "do nothing ware", so whether it can
technically be described as "free" is beside the point; it is useless.
That is not just a casual dependency, it is inexorable. In the end, you
have to pay money to use SlimBrowser. It is therefore no more freeware
or commercial ware than is IE.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I wonder why the analogy doesn't apply to
[...] just to name one example.

short answer: category mistake, confusing a legal argument (is
free/not free independent of X) with a practical one (can be used/not
used independent X). Of course the practical argument is relevant for
the individual trying to run the app, but the fact that he does not
mange to run it (if so), does not in anyway alter the legal status of
the app as such. The app is still free, but of course of little value
if you can not run it. Not to say the practical argument is not
relevant. The practical is relevant. One reason why few in this group
tend to bring freeware for the MAC OS into the loop, can't run it. But
if you want to build your freeware list based on such criteria, you
should start counting DLLs and other dependencies. Say "if you don't
have abc.DLL, this app is not free!", right. Or say "this software
isn't free, it needs hardware to run", ah I see!!

Notice: It is one thing to say "this app is of limited value, since it
depends on X", another thing saying "this app is not freeware, since
it depends on X". You may not like this, but if you want to separate
freeware from not freeware, the practical route isn't very practical,
to put it simple.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

[...]
If IE is not installed, SlimBrowser cannot do anything at
all. Thus, without IE, it is "do nothing ware", so whether it can
technically be described as "free" is beside the point; it is useless.
That is not just a casual dependency, it is inexorable. In the end, you
have to pay money to use SlimBrowser. It is therefore no more freeware
or commercial ware than is IE.

I can refuse to install the .Net framework, and same with visual basic
runtimes, and I can strip out core msie system files from my OS, and I
can delete my richedit dlls, etc, and then, by your chain of thought,
all freeware programs that don't function, due to their dependencies on
my stripped libraries, they are not really freeware.

It is so very inexplicable to me how people remain so very insistent on
confusing such entirely distinct things:

Tangents on what programs might be physically executable in various
technical contexts.

The freeware or payware licensing status of a product.

The MS OE/IE/Windows license is not about what you might or might not be
able to make function, one way or another. It is about the legal status
of that product. The terms of sale.

http://www.redshift.com/~omega/clips/msoe/license.txt

OE is explicitly part of a commercial product. If you decide to do the
Windows update, to update MSIE components, to in turn get the MSOE pieces,
you are engaging in an upgrade of a commercial product. An upgrade sold to
you as part of what you received in return for buying a Windows license.

And no. It is not some weird "hand-me-down chain." MSFT did not sell, as
part of the Windows license, permission to run apps created by third-party
developers. Those exist with their own independent legal status. Each
developer decides whether to sell their products or provide them as
freeware. As Bjorn already explained, quite cleanly, in the very text
quoted.

(Even MSFT, itself, it has separate licensing for some other things it
distributes, such as the Power Toys, and certain distributions of the
Reskit tools, where those are not sold as part of the Windows OS.)

Again: Whether I've kept, or stripped, the libraries in my OS, which
third-party apps might physically depend on, it is utterly irrelevant.

All these basics have been explained in this thread already. Extremely
well. And so many dozens of times....

 

[omega]

[...]
if you want to build your freeware list based on such criteria, you
should start counting DLLs and other dependencies. Say "if you don't
have abc.DLL, this app is not free!", right. Or say "this software
isn't free, it needs hardware to run", ah I see!!

The freeware runs a payware OS which runs on paid hardware which incurs
monthly payments to the utility company, thus freeware does not exist.
Said the Mad Hatter, in a sternly logical tone.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

I wonder why the analogy doesn't apply to
[...] just to name one example.

short answer: category mistake, confusing a legal argument (is
free/not free independent of X) with a practical one (can be used/not
used independent X). Of course the practical argument is relevant for
the individual trying to run the app, but the fact that he does not
mange to run it (if so), does not in anyway alter the legal status of
the app as such. The app is still free, but of course of little value
if you can not run it. Not to say the practical argument is not
relevant. The practical is relevant. One reason why few in this group
tend to bring freeware for the MAC OS into the loop, can't run it. But
if you want to build your freeware list based on such criteria, you
should start counting DLLs and other dependencies. Say "if you don't
have abc.DLL, this app is not free!", right. Or say "this software
isn't free, it needs hardware to run", ah I see!!

Notice: It is one thing to say "this app is of limited value, since it
depends on X", another thing saying "this app is not freeware, since
it depends on X". You may not like this, but if you want to separate
freeware from not freeware, the practical route isn't very practical,
to put it simple.

I am not suggesting that IE is freeware (although I could make the
argument). I am suggesting that if one accepts that it is not, then
apps that require it are not either.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

well put simply: OE/IE is an issue between MS and
USER. Third party freeware programs is an issue between THIRD PARTY
AUTHOR and USER. If third party software depends on X (like MS WIN
or IE) does not matter, since the third party software terms of
use is still an issue between THIRD PARY AUTHOR and USER.

[...]
If IE is not installed, SlimBrowser cannot do anything at
all. Thus, without IE, it is "do nothing ware", so whether it can
technically be described as "free" is beside the point; it is
useless. That is not just a casual dependency, it is inexorable. In
the end, you have to pay money to use SlimBrowser. It is therefore
no more freeware or commercial ware than is IE.

I can refuse to install the .Net framework, and same with visual basic
runtimes, and I can strip out core msie system files from my OS, and I
can delete my richedit dlls, etc, and then, by your chain of thought,
all freeware programs that don't function, due to their dependencies
on my stripped libraries, they are not really freeware.

What does it matter what kind of ware they are if they cannot be used?

It is so very inexplicable to me how people remain so very insistent
on confusing such entirely distinct things:

Tangents on what programs might be physically executable in various
technical contexts.

The freeware or payware licensing status of a product.

The MS OE/IE/Windows license is not about what you might or might not
be able to make function, one way or another. It is about the legal
status of that product. The terms of sale.

http://www.redshift.com/~omega/clips/msoe/license.txt

OE is explicitly part of a commercial product. If you decide to do the
Windows update, to update MSIE components, to in turn get the MSOE
pieces, you are engaging in an upgrade of a commercial product. An
upgrade sold to you as part of what you received in return for buying
a Windows license.

And no. It is not some weird "hand-me-down chain." MSFT did not sell,
as part of the Windows license, permission to run apps created by
third-party developers. Those exist with their own independent legal
status. Each developer decides whether to sell their products or
provide them as freeware. As Bjorn already explained, quite cleanly,
in the very text quoted.

(Even MSFT, itself, it has separate licensing for some other things it
distributes, such as the Power Toys, and certain distributions of the
Reskit tools, where those are not sold as part of the Windows OS.)

Again: Whether I've kept, or stripped, the libraries in my OS, which
third-party apps might physically depend on, it is utterly irrelevant.

Only if you don't consider it relevant whether your apps function.

All these basics have been explained in this thread already. Extremely
well. And so many dozens of times....

So constant repetition = accuracy? Thanks for the insight.