on 7/7/2007 4:58 PM, Erik Hemdal wrote: >> Message: 10 >> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:52:14 -0500 >> From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> > . . . . >> David Boles wrote: >> >> You have an extremely one-sided view. There is no reason to assume that >> everything a EULA demands is legal. You may end up in an expensive >> lawsuit if you break it, but it's a mix bag who will win. For example, >> if someone sells you a product and demands that you can't resell it, >> that demand is not legal: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/28/us_court_ruling_nixes_software/ >> If they say you can't reverse engineer it, that's still up in the air: >> http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/intellectual-property-law/reverse_engineering.htm >> although the DCMA would apply to some software and change things in >> countries that support it. >> > > Thanks Les. I could not recall DMCA, but that's the ugly law I meant. > The problem with EULA's is that you have to fight them out in court. If > a publisher make them nasty enough, many people will just give in and > accept the terms, as David suggested. > > I can recommend http://www.badsoftware.com as a very informative site > about consumer protections regarding packaged software. The author > behind the site (and an author of the associated book) is an attorney > and a software test practitioner, as well as an awfully nice guy. You did read the disclaimer in *bold* at the very bottom of the page you linked? ;-) -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
