If You Don't Like The GPLv3...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dcparris Nov 02, 2006 3:52 PM EDT |
Try out the license for Windows Vista:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127719-c,vistalonghorn/art... Yeah, not only do you have the right to phone home to be assured that your license is valid, you also have the right to keep your Windows vs rival software tests a secret. I'll take the anti-DRM clause over this kind of crap any day. Dino, can you tell me how they get to control that information? What law gives them that much power? That's just pure crap! |
| dinotrac Nov 02, 2006 4:41 PM EDT |
Rev - It's got my interest. These strange provisions have come out since my practice days, and I haven't kept up very well. Methinks I need to run by the alma mater's law library and do some spelunking. The theory for these bizarre provisions, I guess, would be the simple matter of I own the rights and I will allow you use of my software only under the following conditions: a, b, and c. If you don't agree, you don't get to use it. The trouble, as I see it, comes from the legal foundation for the licenses, which is copyright law. It is copyright law that protects your interest in the software and gives you the power to decide what rights you will grant. Software, however, is a funny animal. Copyright law, for example, allows exceptions to an author's right to restrict use of copyrighted works. Well known exceptions include the right of commentary and parody. What constitutes fair use in the world of software? Should it be possible to prevent a licensed user of your software from publishing a commentary on it? Especially when you consider that the commentary need not repeat any of the source code? Etc, etc, etc. Or, how about this thought experiment: You run a series of benchmarks on WIndows Vista. Knowing that I spent ten years as a performance specialist and a capacity planner (It's true! Bet you didn't know that, did you? ) you ask me to look your systems over. I happen to run across your benchmarks and, wouldn't you know it, our relationship goes way back and you didn't see a need for any restrictive contract when you sought my help. The benchmarks were not under lock and key and do not divulge any sensitive company data. What's to keep me from publishing that data? Not Microsoft. I have no relationship with them. You, maybe, but in the absence of specific contract terms, you'd have to show that you protected the data and that I should have known it was a trade secret. I didn't come by the information illegally or even dishonestly, I'm not violating any license or contract by publishing your results, and --- presuming that the benchmark results aren't presented in some unique and creative way that you devised -- I'm not infringing any copyrighted material. What kind of potential nightmare are we creating for our courts if we decide that I can safely publish your results but you can't? Can Microsoft demand that you make sure that I don't find your results? How can any of this be enforced when copyright law doesn't restrict the right to comment on copyrighted material? I sincerely hope that the courts tell Microsoft to blow chunks on this. |
| jimf Nov 02, 2006 4:57 PM EDT |
> Well known exceptions include the right of commentary and parody. I guess they're probably safe from the parody part of it. Pretty hard to parody anything that ridiculous already. |
| dinotrac Nov 02, 2006 5:24 PM EDT |
>Pretty hard to parody anything that ridiculous already. Ya got me there. |
| dcparris Nov 02, 2006 5:31 PM EDT |
Yeah, if I had been drinking coffee when I read that, it would have been all over the PC/keyboard. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!