I'm just saying this because I don't know who the lawyer is but I wouldn't bet my house on any of that. If MS wants a company to pay, I will assure you they will pay. The same can be said for IBM, Oracle, Redhat, or any other company. Software that is sold for use in this country shouldn't be boot legged, it's that simple. Yes, I have license for every OS and other software on every computer in my house that needs a license. If someone walks out of best buy with a computer, sells it to you with your knowledge that it's stolen. You can be arrested for receiving stolen property. About 20 years ago I was working in Up Town, a guy came to the store (10,000 Auto Parts) and asked several of us if we wanted to buy a TV ;-) One of the guys said yes, we watched the guy walk across the street, in to Best Buy, and he almost got in to the street with the TV. OH did I say we called Best Buy and gave them the description of the guy. Sam. Shawn wrote: >On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:12:17 -0500 >"David Phillips" <david at acz.org> wrote: > > > >>There is nothing in copyright law (17 USC 117) or any other law >>(except perhaps some misguided local laws) that makes them valid. The >>first sale doctrine allows an owner of a copy to do what he or she >>wants (selling, lending, etc.) with it, as long as it is within >>copyright law. >> >>When you buy a copy of Windows at Best Buy, first sale doctrine >>applies, because you are buying that copy. You aren't signing a >>contract that legally binds you to a license. Thus, you have full >>rights under copyright law. There is no basis in law for restricting >>your rights after you've already purchased it. Imagine if there was a >>"click-through license" in a box of breakfast cereal. It seems silly, >>but software is exactly the same way. >> >>I believe this means that special versions of software not bought >>under contract cannot impose limitations on how you may use the >>software. This would include academic versions, OEM versions, etc. >>OEM resellers that sell the software incorrectly could be in violation >>of their contract, but that wouldn't make the end user liable, since >>the copy was made and distributed by the copyright holder. Imagine >>buying a "special" hammer, that said you were only allowed to use it >>at home, but not at work. >> >> >> > >Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to look into the links you mentioned, but I when given time in a short time. Isn't there an argument that if you buy something and it comes with a clause of "Sold as is, no warranty implied nor given" it's just that? Or that can be put into context of "sold to the original owner, not for transfer/trade to another party". I believe coupon swapping groups got into trouble for that a few years ago. Airlines tickets are generally non-transferable as well. > >If I'm not mistaken, those clauses are considered binding. Meaning you accept the terms at which you buy them or receive them. I'll admit to there being ways to not be limited to those clauses, but typically it involves the court system and proof of why you shouldn't be. > >This is all just my understanding of how sales are typically handled with certain clauses. Not saying it's right, nor wrong. Just how I've understood them. > >It's a buyer beware world, if you don't agree with something don't buy it. Read the legalize on what you're considering purchasing. Not trying to sound harsh, but there's also an amount of responsibility involved with this. > > > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list