Michael said:
Kurt, I trust you are only directing the comment and question to
those who may have specifically defended the practice. I make this
point because if a person simply answers a question with regard to
what a user can or cannot do in this connection, it is usually in the
context of the activation scheme.
I believe I directed towards the "'Microsoft über alles' morons." And boy
did they come out of the closet for this one! LOL!
For example, if a person asks if they can install a single licensed
version of XP on other computers in their house, would I not be
remiss if I didn't inform them they will not be able to activate XP
(through normal commonly accepted means within the OS) on more than
one system.
"they will not be able to activate XP" - "they *may* not . . . ." would be
more accurate and honest.
If I do that, I'm not making a comment on XP or
activation one way or the other. I and others are simply trying to
save users from the hassle they may go though if they attempt to
install on more than one machine only to find later they cannot
activate on both of them and find themselves locked out. I know
you've seen where this has happened, would it not be irresponsible of
us not to point that out?
Mike, you wouldn't be one of those I was addressing this to, as you don't
seem to be a zealot in the cause of all things MS, as some of your brethren.
I respect you, and believe that you are only trying to give an honest answer
to try to help them out. If you haven't noticed, I only really rip into
those the adovate MS's rights over that of the individual.
In response to your question, no but I'm not sure I see the relevance
as SCO's claim is that there are elements of Unix code within Linux a
separate OS, something that will have to be substantiated in court
and by they way, that's another difference as there is a legal action
pending and there is no legal action as yet with regard to
activation.
Activation is only a symptom, not the cause. The problem is MS thinking it
can pretty much right rules for individuals in their own homes. Even MS's
One computer term is not the problem I have with MS EULA. It's the totally
unsubstantiated claim that their anonymous post-purchase "shrink-wrap
license," just like your TV & stereo came with, is also a software usage
license, that effectively strips individuals of their rights under copyright
law.
While there is an intellectual property claim both use
as a defense, Microsoft asserts its claim through its EULA.
SCO tried to use their interpretation of the UNIX license against IBM for
contributing their own code to Linux.
". . . . that IBM and Sequent developed extensions to Unix such as JFS,
NUMA software, RCU, and so forth are part of SCO-owned Unix through derivate
work clauses in the Unix licensing agreements. (IBM now owns Sequent.) -
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-21-AmndComplaint_Story01.html
From
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
128. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges by reference paragraphs 1-127
above.
129. IBM has numerous obligations under the AT&T / IBM UNIX Agreements,
some of which are detailed below.
130. Paragraph 11 of the Side Letter contains the following language
regarding the intent of the parties to prevent unrestricted disclosure of
UNIX:
You [IBM] recognize the proprietary nature of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS and the need
to protect SOFTWARE PRODUCTS from unrestricted disclosure.
131. IBM is prohibited under §7.10 of the Software Agreement from
transferring or disposing of UNIX in a way that destroys its economic value.
The applicable contract language reads as follows:
Except as provided in Section 7.06(b), nothing in this Agreement grants to
Licensee the right to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of a
SOFTWARE PRODUCT in whole or in part.
132. IBM has a duty of confidentiality to protect the confidentiality of
SCO’s trade secrets. The Side Letter ¶9 provides, in part, as follows:
LICENSEE [IBM] agrees that it shall hold SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this
Agreement in confidence for AT&T. LICENSEE further agrees that it shall not
make any disclosure of such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS to anyone, except to employees
of LICENSEE to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights
are granted, LINCENSEE shall appropriately notify each employee to whom any
such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall
be kept in confidence by such employee.
IBM is further required by ¶2.01 of the Sublicensing Agreement to obtain
confidentiality agreements from its distributors and customers, and by ¶3 of
the Side letter to obtain the same from contractors.
133. IBM is prohibited under Section 2.05 of the Software Agreement from
using UNIX for others. The applicable language provides:
No right is granted by this Agreement for the use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
directly for others, or for any use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS by others.
134. The cumulative effect of these provisions requires IBM to protect
SCO’s valuable UNIX trade secrets against unrestricted disclosure,
unauthorized transfer or disposition and unauthorized use by others.
135. Notwithstanding these provisions, IBM has subjected SCO’s UNIX
trade secrets to unrestricted disclosure, unauthorized transfer and
disposition, unauthorized use, and has otherwise encouraged others in the
Linux development community to do the same. SCO, therefore, has terminated
IBM’s license to use UNIX-based software products. (See letter dated March
6, 2003, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E).
136. As a result of IBM’s breaches, SCO has suffered substantial damages
in an amount to be proven at trial.
If
there is a dispute, it's yet to be brought or litigated.
And it would be up to MS to seek legal relief for what they alleged to be
violations of their "license," just like SCO.
Assuming it
were litigated and Microsoft lost, there are implications beyond
Microsoft. Perhaps others would now assert a filmmaker and/or studio
loses the rights to their creation once it hits the theatres or
others might claim once a song is released, its now public domain for
anyone to have copy, give to others and on and on and that goes to
the very heart of copyright law, both as it used to be as well as how
it is in the digital era.
LOL! There are federal laws that already protect movies from illegal
distribution. Now your trying to confuse what I advocate, "fair use" of
software by the individual who purchases a copy of copyrighted material, not
giving it to friends, or selling it on eBay. It's like making a copy of a
CD so you can keep a copy in your car's multiCD player, and keeping the
original at home to use on your stereo. That would be the more apt analogy
of what I advocated.
So now that you know that SCO among claims against IBM is breach of license:
"DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IBM SHOULD JUST CAVE IN TO SCO'S LICENSING CLAIMS
BEFORE SCO LEGALLY SUBSTANTIATES THOSE CLAIMS?"
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
