Amiga.org

Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 05:54:04 PM

Title: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 05:54:04 PM
Quote
I should also like to remind the community, and those users of the Amiga Operating System, that the End User License Agreement clearly states that the license for use is only valid, on Amiga branded machines. Therefore if the Amiga operating system is being used on a non-Amiga branded machine the use would be prohibited.


I'm affraid this is factually inacurate. < = OS3.1 has no EULA whatsoever. OS3.5 doesn't mention what it is to be run on and has an option to register for UAE. OS3.9 even has an option to 'Install Emulation'. If I get the time later I will make some screenshots.

So what the heck is Bill talking about? Is it pure fantasy or just what he wishes it stated? Also any potential EULA for 3.5 and 3.9 would be the result of and responsible by H&P, not AI right? They are not a product of and not owned by AI to this day AFAIK. Sour grapes?

BTW this thread will stay clean, I will use a heavy hand if needed. State your opinion no matter what it is just no insults or flames.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: MarkTime on August 21, 2003, 05:57:39 PM
The most important thing about the EULA discussion, in my opinion,
is the fact that Amiga, Inc's president apparantly knows what a EULA is,
and thinks that a EULA that protects a brand is enforceable and a legal concept.

This is in very STARK CONTRAST, to the fanbase, who believes it is legal in
'their' country, to ignore a EULA, to install Mac OS X at will.

They believe EULA's are unenforceable and invalid legal concepts.

Now, I have made a HUGE POINT of this...and REPEATEDLY....breaking a EULA...and in the case of Mac OS X, there is no dispute the EULA exists and is clear...is PIRACY.

I made a point of this, for one reason.... I knew this day would come....people, you reap what you sow.

Honesty is the best policy.....
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 06:00:09 PM
@Marktime

But there is no EULA, or at least not in the way Bill stated it.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Coder on August 21, 2003, 06:01:15 PM
Hi,

I think that what Bill means is the whole issue about OS4 being able to run on Pegasos hardware. Better said, OS4 "cracked" to run on Pegasos hardware.

Coder
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: MarkTime on August 21, 2003, 06:02:29 PM
Yes, there may not be a EULA at all on Amiga OS 3.9...but perhaps he was referring to Amiga OS 4.0 which is not released...

it will probably have a EULA....in any case, I am making a slightly different point about EULA's....

there may be a lot to discuss about whether his statement was clear or valid, or a EULA even exists...

but the statement makes it clear he does believe EULA's are enforceable, and therefore the not-so-covert sponsored attempts to break Apple's EULA are clearly understood to be illegal by certain parties.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 06:03:54 PM
@Coder

Maybe so, if so his wording is terible. How could he be reminding us about a EULA that probably hasn't been written yet by a company other than his own for a product not yet released? :-?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Coder on August 21, 2003, 06:08:15 PM
@Red

Quote
Maybe so, if so his wording is terible.


Was "confusing" not Bill's middle name? I think the idea behind words like that is that in the end it can be explained in a thousand ways. A neat way to say "covering our ass." Done by a lot. :-)

Coder
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: downix on August 21, 2003, 06:08:17 PM
@Marktime

By apple's EULA, you can't run Mac OS X on Apple-built machines.  I would note, I do not run Mac OS X, even tho I do have a desire to, due to the over-restrictive nature of it's EULA.  I find it sad, honestly, that Apple cannot manage to stop treating it's customers like criminals.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 06:19:02 PM
hold your horses for a min..

i think u guys missed something here,
the deal is about "SELLING and ADVERTISING" , ie thats what is illegal,... aint it?

an example would be..

Pegasos 2 , runs morphos 2.x , Amiga Os4 , mac os X , and linux bla ?

aint it? ...hmm stop me if i am wrong.

my point is , genesi wouldnt be allowed to crack a os to work on their hw, that is illegal no matter what , or?

but running macosx on a amigaone/linux/pegasos aint breaking the eula...right? , as long as the machine aint marketed (like a certain website at this very moment) with alot of os's .

a last bit , why is os3.x needed for pegasos , and why does genesi want to liscense this ?
(since they allready claimed it is amiga api compatible) .

sorry for the sidetracks but i really want to get some answers here , i have my own opinions and i have a bigger experience with pegasos (my closest neighbour have one) and he have his opinions..

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 06:22:02 PM
whats the story on...

i went and bought mac osX today , i dont have a mac but the people in the shop didnt ask me either.

will i break the eula if i did this?



Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 21, 2003, 06:24:35 PM
@red

From the OS 3.9 licensing agreement:

"This License allows you to to install and use the Amiga Software on a single Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."

...

"This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga Software only on a computer system that had a version of Amiga OS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system."

So, I think that McEwen reference to the EULA is a fair and resonable one in view of Bill Buck's voiced intention to bundle OS 3.9 with pegasos.

@MarkTime

Your stance is correct, of course, except that no EULA can ever suspend a purchaser's statutory rights as defined by the law of the country that purchaser lives in. It is often the case that EULAs contain clauses which are illegal in the country the product is sold to.

This is not to say that people should ignore EULAs where they are perfectly valid, even when the clauses are ridiculous in most people's views.

(My comment has nothing to to with the Amiga or Apple EULAs in particular)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 06:33:53 PM
Quote

bhoggett wrote:
@red

From the OS 3.9 licensing agreement:

"This License allows you to to install and use the Amiga Software on a single Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."

...

"This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga Software only on a computer system that had a version of Amiga OS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system."

So, I think that McEwen reference to the EULA is a fair and resonable one in view of Bill Buck's voiced intention to bundle OS 3.9 with pegasos.



OK I stand somewhat corrected. So how is it that OS3.9 has a 'Install Emulation' feature? Kind of backwards isn't it?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: DethKnight on August 21, 2003, 06:38:17 PM
@lempkee

Quote
will i break the eula if i did this?


only if you installed it and/or ran it on a non-apple-mac

BUT this wouldn't make you a pirate

to be a pirate you must do one of the following
a>steal the software (not pay currency  for it)
b>redistribute/copy  the software (without license to do so)
c>hold things/people for ransom,  fly the jolly roger etc..

BUT, if you install macOS X on a non-apple-mac,
you are definitely in breach of a contract.
You could get sued for breach of contract (here anyway), but you have not committed piracy



Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Step on August 21, 2003, 06:38:57 PM
I must confess i am still at 3.1 so i dont really know how things are in the updated world, but since i cant run some older (a500 etc) stuff, an emulation could perhaps be wanted, or something like that...
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 21, 2003, 06:40:39 PM
There is a EULA on both 3.5 and 3.9 (in the license directory on the CD - it's an AmigaGuide file)

It says you are allowed to install and use the software on "one single Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time", also that you must not distribute it across a network, use it in a nuclear power station, air traffic control situation, etc...

Anyone using AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 under emulation (eg. on a PC, Mac, or Pegasos), is breaking the EULA, UNLESS they are using it on an AmigaOne running linux (as this is an Amiga-licensed computer) or they are using the OS 3.9 that came with Amithlon / AmigaOS XL (as this version has a modified EULA to allow use on non-Amiga branded computers).

So, if you are running UAE, and want to keep Bill McEwen happy, you would be well advised to stick to WB3.1.

Or, you could just ignore him.

Personally I'll carry on using AmigaOS 3.9 on my Mac running MaxUAE, and maybe my Pegasos too when I get around to it.

I paid for the damn OS and I'm gonna use it.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 21, 2003, 06:42:00 PM
@red

Quote
OK I stand somewhat corrected. So how is it that OS3.9 has a 'Install Emulation' feature? Kind of backwards isn't it?


I dunno. My copy certainly has no such option, so I have no idea where that comes from.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 21, 2003, 06:47:08 PM
Quote

lempkee wrote:
whats the story on...

i went and bought mac osX today , i dont have a mac but the people in the shop didnt ask me either.

will i break the eula if i did this?


Yes.

I bought a retail boxed copy of OS X Jaguar too (I also  have another copy that came with my iMac).  

The staff in the Apple Centre where I bought it didnt ask for proof that I owned a Mac, didn't even ask if I owned a Mac.  If they had asked, I would have told them that  I'm going to install and run it under Mac-On-Linux on my Pegasos.

Along with using Amiga OS3.9 on my Mac and Pegasos under UAE, this makes two EULA's I have broken.  Shame on me. :-D
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 21, 2003, 06:50:29 PM
Quote
"This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga Software only on a computer system that had a version of Amiga OS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system."


Ahh.. I didn't see that part.  This means it's also in breach of the EULA to use AmigaOS on the AmigaOne running UAE under Linux, unless you bought a pre-cofigured system from a dealer with everything already installed.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: seer on August 21, 2003, 06:52:03 PM
OK I stand somewhat corrected. So how is it that OS3.9 has a 'Install Emulation' feature? Kind of backwards isn't it?

I dunno. My copy certainly has no such option, so I have no idea where that comes from.


Maybe a version provided with Cloanto's Amiga Forever ? Tho I don't recall them offering 3.1+
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 06:54:19 PM
hmm something is very wrong here..


my os3.9 cd has a installer for uae function,and as i read here earlier its stated u are allowed to use os3.9 on a machine u actually had amigaos running on before...or something....ugh i am so confused.

help anyone!!

os3.9 is a addon to os3.1 we all know this, so basically all who have 3.1 could use 3.9 or?

and pegasos doesnt (or claim so) have os3.x , only reversed os code.

so if i am right then pegasos cant and aint allowed to use 3.9 , but then u have this uae thingy...  if it has an installer for it ON the damn cd, aint that like...heh i have no words...
as then its only for pegasos people to buy or take their stuff from the old amiga and put over and into uae..and set up 3.9..

help! anyone... this is really confusing
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 06:57:44 PM
just a quick dir list:

2.AmigaOS3.9:OS-Version3.9> list in#? all
Install-Tools                      Dir ----rwed 11-Sep-00 10:47:18
Installation-Emu.info             2796 ----rw-d 08-Feb-01 11:23:07
Installation.info                 2792 ----rw-d 08-Feb-01 11:23:07
Installer                          Dir ----rwed 11-Sep-00 10:47:23
Internet                           Dir ----rwed 08-Feb-01 13:36:19
2 files - 3 directories - 10 blocks used


this is an orginal cd ofcourse, this is how mine looks inside that dir.

hope it helps
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 21, 2003, 07:04:06 PM
@seer

Quote
Maybe a version provided with Cloanto's Amiga Forever ? Tho I don't recall them offering 3.1+


AmigaForever does have 3.1, but not 3.5 or 3.9. Older versions only go to 3.0.

It is possible that there is more than one edition of 3.9, with minor undocumented changes, including this one. It's also possible that there is such a function on my copy too, but I'm certain I've never seen it.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 07:08:05 PM
i am skimming my os3.9 cd..., and now i noticed the registration process again..

i never got a reg card when i bought my os3.9 cds, infact i never checked the html doc before now even ... and heh its 2+ years since i bought os3.9...geez.

so either my shop did it or i have some weird version or simply didnt get a regcard (with user number) ... the cd's (both versions of 3.9) is in a jewel case with a paper manual in color , no box like os3.5 ..

the inlet manual is 7+7 pages (english + german).

do i have an cd unlike yours ? , since allready several here stated their 3.9 doesnt have EMU install ...

sorry for doing it in this thread but its somewhat relevant to the topic discussion....

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: WalkernyRanger on August 21, 2003, 07:08:33 PM
Also we should all remember is that Amiga Inc.  isn't going to track down users who are using their OS on unapproved hardware, without proper liscensing.  This warning was meant for any company who intends to have Amiga OS run on their hardware.  Then Amiga would be able to sue them to stop and pay restitution.  Amiga is only trying to prevent the use of their IP as a selling point for competing hardware.  This is not out of the ordinary and is not an attack on the community.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Warface on August 21, 2003, 07:09:53 PM
Quote
I should also like to remind the community, and those users of the Amiga Operating System, that the End User License Agreement clearly states that the license for use is only valid, on Amiga branded machines. Therefore if the Amiga operating system is being used on a non-Amiga branded machine the use would be prohibited.


I'm not in breach of such EULA and I don't intend to do that, but it's plain
ridiculous, so... Please sue me. It's just a pointless threat.

IMHO it's part of their campaign where they'd like to associate the word "illegal" with Pegasos/MorphOS.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 21, 2003, 07:10:13 PM
@lempkee

The EULA is a mess.

It does say you can use OS 3.9 on an Amiga-licensed machine, or one that came with AmigaOS installed at the time of purchase.

So, if you buy a PC with UAE and AmigaOS 3.1 pre-installed (Amiga Forever), then you'd be entitled to run OS 3.9 according to the EULA, except for it not being Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed.

I suspect that wheoever put that EULA together was a donkey, both in the business and the legal sense.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 07:15:03 PM
bhogget: thanx , i had a feeling of the same but i had to know for sure...
so basically where and what are we atm with EULA.

also, can you please check your os3.9 cd again , and tell me if its boxed or in jewel case etc,and compare date stamps from my dir list...ie maybe mine was an later version or something ..but it need'd bb1 when that came , ie its not that late of an version if so is the case.
(infact i only bought it 3-4 months after it came in the shops)

cheers
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Ni72ous on August 21, 2003, 07:25:01 PM
Quote
I'm affraid this is factually inacurate. < = OS3.1 has no EULA whatsoever.


When i purchased my first A1200 years ago my Amiga OS 3.0 disks came in plastic sealable bag  with a sticker sealing it closed on the sticker was some terms and conditions i had to sccept before installing it, i believe i may still have the bag with the discs including the broken seal somewhere.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Ni72ous on August 21, 2003, 07:32:48 PM
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 07:43:03 PM
No actually it wasz bought way before that, an original version AFAIK. When I get home I will make a screenshot.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: lempkee on August 21, 2003, 07:45:47 PM
redrumloa: was that aimed at me ? (your answer)

os3.5 doesnt have this emu install afaik, i can check ...

cheers
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 07:51:23 PM
@lempkee

No sorry, that was aimed at seer concerning OS3.9.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: olegil on August 21, 2003, 07:53:34 PM
Well, I can still honestly say I don't see where he's threatening end users about suing for breach of EULA. Come on, noone would be that stupid.

On the other hand, Genesi are marketing an OS3.9 bundle with no license. How well do you think that would go down with Apple? Must be a reason why Genesi aren't bundling OSX, eh? But AmigaInc aren't as strong as Apple, so who cares if Genesi screw them, right?

If Bill McEwen mentioning the fact that there is such a statement in the EULA is dispicable, I would say Genesi bundling with no license is horrible. No matter if it was paid for or not, they are actively tricking users into breaching an EULA, one that might very well be legally binding in the users home country. Do tell me how this is such a good idea?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Belial6 on August 21, 2003, 09:04:46 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your PC become a licensed amiga computer if you buy Amiga Forever?  The fact that their is an OS layer between the hardware and AmigaOS shouldn't make a difference.

Thus, any machine running Amiga Forever IS a licensed Amiga computer.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Wolfe on August 21, 2003, 09:11:43 PM
An EULA is basically aimed at other companies to protect their product.

EULA has no legs and little if any teeth in a court of law if you "john doe" go to a store and buy a copy, put it on your machine for your own use.

Basically - if they don't print the EULA all over the front of the box and the tape that binds it so "joe smuck" can read it before he purchases it.  Anotherwords has no excuse for not seeing it before purchasing it, the EULA is useless.  Not enforcible in a court of law against an end user - privided you are not pirating etc.

EULA - A Inc vs Genesi could have very sharp teeth depending.

EULA - end user arguments are hot air.   ;-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: MarkTime on August 21, 2003, 09:17:07 PM
Let say you do this.

1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120
2.) Copy Microsoft Word which you didn't pay for and run it.

Act 2 is piracy, right?

1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120
2.) Copy Mac OS X to your Pegasos and run it, though you don't have a license to do so.

Act 2 is still piracy.

It's PIRACY.

In scenario one its easy to understand, cause Microsoft and Apple are different companies.

But just because you bought a license to run Mac OS X on Apple branded hardware from Apple for $120, doesn't mean you paid to run it on your pegasos.

You didn't.

You didn't pay for such a license and you did it anyway.

It's piracy.

added:
----------
Some countries have consumer protection laws, if you buy Mac OS X thinking you could run it on your pegasos, but they failed to tell you its only good on Apple branded hardware, then the contract may not be valid.  You may have the right, in your country, to return the product for a refund.

But in almost no country in the world, does an invalid contract=a valid contract that does what you want.

In other words, you may be entitled to your money back, but you won't be entitled to write up a new contract under your own terms.

Now, with that said, in just a very few countries you have a few extra options, even if the contract says otherwise, but UK and Germany are not on the list of countries that allow you to change the license to run on any machine that you want.

Certainly, Amiga, Inc. and Genesi have American offices anyway, and are under american law for part of their operations...so they'll have to consider EULA's.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 21, 2003, 09:24:17 PM
Quote

olegil wrote:
Well, I can still honestly say I don't see where he's threatening end users about suing for breach of EULA. Come on, noone would be that stupid.


Well why bother "reminding users" about the terms of the EULA in his statement if they have no intention of enforcing it?

It's just more pathetic posturing in a knee-jerk reaction to Genesi's announcement.

Quote
On the other hand, Genesi are marketing an OS3.9 bundle with no license.


No they aren't.  They paid for all the copies of OS3.9.  They can sell them to whoever they wish, in whatever way they wish.  I can go to vesalia.de right now and order a Pegasos board with a copy of OS3.9.  Are they also despicable?

Quote
Must be a reason why Genesi aren't bundling OSX, eh?


Because more people want AmigaOS?

Quote
But AmigaInc aren't as strong as Apple, so who cares if Genesi screw them, right?


First of all, Amiga gets no money from AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9.  It is H&P's product and it is up to them to enforce the EULA.  In no way are Amiga Inc being screwed.  If they are to enforce the EULA then everyone using AmigaOS 3.5+ under emulation is breaking the EULA, including people with AmigaOnes running UAE, PC's running UAE, Macs running UAE, and Pegasos's running UAE.

If Genesi were screwing them (which they aren't) you're right, probably nobody would care, considering the number of people Amiga Inc has screwed in recent months / years.

Quote
If Bill McEwen mentioning the fact that there is such a statement in the EULA is dispicable,


I wouldn't say it was despicable.  Just rather desperate, pathetic, petty and irrelevant.  

Quote
I would say Genesi bundling with no license is horrible. No matter if it was paid for or not, they are actively tricking users into breaching an EULA,


Nobody is tricking anyone.

Quote
one that might very well be legally binding in the users home country. Do tell me how this is such a good idea?


Personally I don't think it's a good idea at all.  I don't think anyone using MorphOS would have the slightest interest in running an inferior OS on their machines, and if they did they've probably got a copy of 3.5 or 3.9 left over from their Amiga.  Bundling it is rather pointless.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Ni72ous on August 21, 2003, 09:29:08 PM
Quote
1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120 2.) Copy Mac OS X to your Pegasos and run it, though you don't have a license to do so. Act 2 is still piracy.

No its not, you have purchased the original cd, its just breaking the eula.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: MarkTime on August 21, 2003, 09:34:25 PM
The CD is just media.

It has nothing to do with anything.

The only thing you purchased is a license.

This is another common myth that you brought up.
Maybe it will help you to understand, that losing the original CD does not invalidate your license.

In otherwords, if I make a backup copy of my original CD, and the original CD gets lost or stolen, or just destroyed....I'm not out of luck.

I can continue to use my backup CD, because the original CD has no importance....the fact that I purchased a license and am using the license properly is all thats important.

I think everyone can easily understand how the license is still valid in a case when the original CD is lost.

But when someone has a CD, they somehow believes this gives them a right to write up their own contract and licensing terms.

CD media does not have such magical properties.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: DethKnight on August 21, 2003, 09:36:50 PM
Quote
1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120
2.) Copy Mac OS X to your Pegasos and run it, though you don't have a license to do so.

Act 2 is still piracy.

It's PIRACY.


only depends on where you copied the MacOS X from, was it your own purchased copy or the neighbor's. ?
If it was your own purchased copy, then no, you're just a contract breacher, but if was a copy of the neighbor's it's piracy.
It's probably possible to buy the license without the media, which would be just a CONTRACT
Its possible to buy a disc without the license in pirate circles.

If the CD were just "media", instead of a delivery vehicle
then you could copy/distribute them ad-infinitum with legal impunity.  right?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Ni72ous on August 21, 2003, 09:38:25 PM
Quote
The CD is just media.

And the eula is a worthless piece of text.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: MarkTime on August 21, 2003, 09:39:33 PM
Quote
And the eula is a worthless piece of text.


a EULA is a valid contract.
My word is not worthless.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 21, 2003, 09:52:34 PM
Quote

Belial6 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your PC become a licensed amiga computer if you buy Amiga Forever?  The fact that their is an OS layer between the hardware and AmigaOS shouldn't make a difference.

Thus, any machine running Amiga Forever IS a licensed Amiga computer.


The EULA also prohibits AmigaOS from being installed and used on a computer that didn't have Amiga OS installed on it when you bought it.  

Unless the PC already had AmigaOS installed when you bought it, you're still breaking the EULA.  This also includes AmgaOnes that come pre-installed with Linux.  To install UAE and run OS3.5 or 3.9 would be in breach of the EULA.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: olegil on August 21, 2003, 09:52:49 PM
You don't get it, do you MarkTime?

Noone is saying anything about _copying_ OSX. You install it on a computer that just not happens to be Apple branded. As an end user here in Norway, if I wanted to do this, there is very little Apple could do, afaik. Because it's very tricky for them to dictate how I must use their product. I paid for the right to USE it, not for the right to use it only ever full moon after having sacrificed a virgin goat. Or would have, had I had any interest in OSX.

But I would not advice bundling OSX with non-Apple hardware even though it was paid for. Because tricking end users into breaking a contract is not a good idea.

Same with Genesi/OS3.9. They don't claim to have an official license to bundle this.

@All:
I remember a few weeks ago there was all sorts of #### stirred up about Eyetech shipping UAE and Magic Packs with AmigaOnes. How can that be bad while this is good, btw?

Btw: I admit to running OS3.5 on non-Amiga branded hardware. But as it came with kickstart 3.1 in ROM I don't think I'm really up #### creek, at least not without a ladder or other means of getting down :-P
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: MarkTime on August 21, 2003, 10:00:04 PM
@olegil

I don't understand why you don't like the word 'copy'...all installations involve copying..otherwise its not installed and just exists on the CD.

I will continue to use the word copy because it is the correct word to use, the word copy, btw, doesn't imply anything wrong....

What I am saying is wrong, has always been the breaking of the EULA by breaking the terms of the license...which in UK, Germany, and USA is illegal.

But, as far as Norway goes, you can be the expert on Norway, I don't have the time to look up Norway, I have nothing against Norway, but there is only so much I can do to research this issue.

BTW, do you really want to talk about 'getting it'?

I mean I get it.  People say, BUT WHAT IF I WASN'T INFORMED BY THE CENTRE?

What if what?  I mean thats a red herring, the people on this board fully well know the Apple EULA by now....or What if I am allowed to break a contract in my country...so what, do only laws govern your values, or is your word and integrity important on a level above the law?

What if this, what if that...its all red herrings....

Anyway, I don't care so much about Apple.

I discuss Apple endlessly, because we don't love Apple so much, and its easier to discuss on an acadmic level.

The real question here, is as I said before...what do we make of the AMIGA eula, to only run on AMIGA branded hardware...

and its totally funny, watching the many pro-Amiga fans being anti-EULA.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Step on August 21, 2003, 10:02:01 PM
@marktime

A EULA would be a valid contract if you signed it, but since in most cases you do not, its not a valid contract.
However, the right thing is of course to go back to the store and demand a refund since you obvisously dont agree to the terms.
Theres only one problem, take my Adobe Acrobat box for instance, it says on the outside that the use of the product is regulated through the license agreement on the media.
And there is NO WAY that a shop will make a refund on software that you have opened since they are assuming you have already copied it. Therfore IMO i am entitled to fair use of the product, even if its not strictly is acording to the EULA.

My point here is not that all EULAs are wrong, but that the producer really should make the EULA accessible outside the box.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 21, 2003, 10:02:52 PM
Quote
a EULA is a valid contract


Please point me to court cases where this has been enforced.

Sodomy is illegal in some US states. Does that make being gay illegal there? I guess so! Would it hold up in court? No.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Wolfe on August 21, 2003, 10:10:56 PM
@Marktime

Quote
1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120
2.) Copy Mac OS X to your Pegasos and run it, though you don't have a license to do so.

Act 2 is still piracy.


Right - If you are using your OS X on both your Mac & Peg.
Wrong - if you have a purchased OS X specifically for your Peg.  Not Piracy. . . . . .

  Who said you were buying a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware.  Is the EULA plastered all over the OS X box?  No !  You find out about it AFTER you purchased it when you go to install it..
  Apple would be responsible to make sure everyone who purchased OS X was using it on Apple Branded Hardware.  And would not be able to sell it outright and enforce such restrictions.

The Judge: (friend family reunion) was asked this same question by me a couple of months ago when this same topic was running before.  EULA protect's a Corporation/Product from miss use buy other Corps.  

  Basically he said, after much laughter, that "any Corp vs EndUser trying to enforce such nonsense in his court room would get slapped with contempt for tying up the wheels of justice."  Purely for being stupid!
  As a judge - the EndUser would be given the benifit of the doubt reguardless - what if he's autistic and doesn't read the same thing you do?  Not Enforcable !  If you (A Corp) had a jury to decide - the EndUser would walk away with $ in hand for harrasment, thats if you could find a judge willing to take a "no win" BS case like this.

Piracy has some teeth - but the EULA for an end user not pirating has NO TEETH.   :-)

Lets arrest for trial all those who rent movies and make a copy for personal use - technically that is illegal too.  But not enforceable in a court of law.   :-o

EULA for A Inc and Genesi may have some merit but for the end user in the US - Baugh Humbug ! :-D
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: olegil on August 21, 2003, 10:12:36 PM
Seriously, there's nothing in my upbringing(sp?) that makes me think of _using_ OSX or UAE/3.9/Magic Packs or 3.5 on an Access or bits of 3.9 on a Pegasos _if I have gone out and paid for it_.

No, I'm serious. I do not think I would go to hell for using OSX on non-apple hardware.

I do find the idea of advertising/bundling to trick people into breaking the EULA questionable, though. I'm not saying unethical, but I question it, AmigaInc are saying it's illegal, Genesi says it's ok because they have a license (I presume they mean they paid for it).

Btw: I'm not anti-EULA per se(sp?), I am just saying there are certain points in some EULAs that do NOT stick either when tried in court certain places, OR when tried against the old ten commandments (which I do try to live by, btw. Even if I do kill the odd moose and download the odd episode of SG1).
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 21, 2003, 10:22:07 PM
@Lando

Quote
Unless the PC already had AmigaOS installed when you bought it, you're still breaking the EULA. This also includes AmgaOnes that come pre-installed with Linux. To install UAE and run OS3.5 or 3.9 would be in breach of the EULA.


That's absolutely true. Even though the AmigaOne may be both "Amiga-branded" and "Amiga-licensed", it does not satisfy the qualification that AmigaOS must be installed on it when you buy it.

It's a stupid EULA, of course, but any AmigaOne owners running AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 on it under UAE are breaking the licensing conditions - which automatically invalidates the license according to the EULA itself.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 21, 2003, 10:37:59 PM
@MarkTime

Quote
What if I am allowed to break a contract in my country...so what, do only laws govern your values, or is your word and integrity important on a level above the law?


That's a spurious argument. According to you, it is the moral obligation of a user to respect a EULA, even when the conditions imposed by that license are illegal in his country.

That's utter hypocrisy.

Either the law is the final standard by which actions are judged, or else people get to make their own moral judgments. You can't have a bit of both, whichever suits you best.

The point that has been made is fair: a lot of American products are sealed with a sticker that says that by breaking the seal you agree to their license, which in most cases cannot be read until after you have broken the seal.  The vast majority of courts in the vast majority of countries will throw out that clause for a start, as it is blatantly illegal.

Furthermore, if the law of any country allows the use of certain software under a "fair use" clause, even if that breaks the EULA, the user is NOT a pirate and not doing anything wrong.

If companies want to make their EULAs respected, they should ensure that they do not contain any clauses which are illegal in any country in the world. (Now there's a challenge for you).

Having said that, I agree that people who are ready to break the Apple EULA should not whine about the Amiga Inc EULA being broken.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 21, 2003, 10:58:47 PM
Quote
A EULA would be a valid contract if you signed it, but since in most cases you do not, its not a valid contract.
Wrong. Many things can make a valid contract. A verbal contract is perfectly valid. A 'contract' is basically a fancy name for agreement
By breaking open that seal that came with your software, you are 'agreeing' to the terms of the contract written thereon. By saying yes to a salesmans offer, you are agreeing to the discussed contract.
Writing your signature is only one of the many ways a person may agree to a contract.
Remember those annoying direct mail promotions you get sometimes? (Readers Digest stuff for example) Do you know how you get the labels that they ask you to place in a particular area of one of the envelopes? When you pick a label from thing, and place it in another area, you are effectivly agreeing to a contract(or at least when you send it in, anyway).

I studied a bit of contract law this year, and I know there is more than one way to make a contract(or 'agreement'), there is also more than one way to break a contract.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Rigger on August 21, 2003, 11:43:44 PM
First what the EULA was before is irrelevant to what the EULA will be for any future version of the operating system. Companies often change their EULA prior to new releases.

Although not clearly stated I believe Bill McEwens was speaking directly about Amiga OS 4.0. Since I have not seen the EULA for Amiga OS 4.0 it may well state "use is only valid, on Amiga branded machines." This would include only the Amiga One and a PPC equipped A4000/3000/1200.

However unlikely that Amiga, Inc would be knocking on any one individuals door demanding recompensement for breach of contract, the EULA is a valid contract, . The fact will remain that you are in breach of contract if you have used the product in violation of the EULA. This leaves each individual to decide if they will honor the contract and if again however unlikely you are found in breach you should be prepared to accept the consequences.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Dan on August 22, 2003, 12:19:32 AM
Quote

olegil wrote:
You don't get it, do you MarkTime?

Noone is saying anything about _copying_ OSX. You install it on a computer that just not happens to be Apple branded. As an end user here in Norway, if I wanted to do this, there is very little Apple could do, afaik. Because it's very tricky for them to dictate how I must use their product. I paid for the right to USE it, not for the right to use it only ever full moon after having sacrificed a virgin goat. Or would have, had I had any interest in OSX.

But I would not advice bundling OSX with non-Apple hardware even though it was paid for. Because tricking end users into breaking a contract is not a good idea.

Same with Genesi/OS3.9. They don't claim to have an official license to bundle this.

@All:
I remember a few weeks ago there was all sorts of #### stirred up about Eyetech shipping UAE and Magic Packs with AmigaOnes. How can that be bad while this is good, btw?

This is not good, from Bill Bucks post:
Quote
2. We had purchased and therefore LICENSED Amiga 3.9 for over 500 potential Pegasos buyers. 3.9 works now through emulation. If a Pegasos owner has 3.5 or 3,9 they can legally use it on the Pegasos.

Clearly he hasn´t  "LICENSED", he has just bought some WB3.9 disks which he can resell just like any other amigadealer. But he can´t bundle them with the Pegasos. Sell them at the same time yes. But put them in a package with the Pegasos and sell them togheter  NO.
Even a 4 year old understands that.

Quote
Btw: I admit to running OS3.5 on non-Amiga branded hardware. But as it came with kickstart 3.1 in ROM I don't think I'm really up #### creek, at least not without a ladder or other means of getting down :-P

I don´t think you will have any trouble with your Access.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: T_Bone on August 22, 2003, 12:29:21 AM
> AmigaForever does have 3.1, but not 3.5 or 3.9.
> Older versions only go to 3.0.

However 3.9 has a separate install for emulators. Why would that be there if they don't want it running on a non Amiga branded machine?

Amiga Inc doesn't even sell a branded Amiga computer that will run OS3.9.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 22, 2003, 12:33:57 AM
@T_Bone

Quote
However 3.9 has a separate install for emulators. Why would that be there if they don't want it running on a non Amiga branded machine?


As we've discovered, not all copies of OS 3.9 have this "Installation-Emu" option.

As for the "why would it be there?" question, I can't say.  I quoted from the license, I didn't say I thought it was a good licence.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Step on August 22, 2003, 12:36:31 AM
@iamaboringperson

Sorry, my point was to say that a EULA could be valid, if handled correctly. The problem is, they are not.
Take the windows update as an example, theres usually an EULA involved, what happens when the OS decides to bug when the interaction with the user is to take place, and hit the i agree button itself, would the user be tied to the agreement ?, ofcourse not.
Theres all sorts of problems with electronic stuff like this and unlike a signature on a paper, where the actual agreement and the signature is tied to eachother, an electronic "i agree" button does not say who actually pushed the button, nor if that person is of legal age etc...
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Hammer on August 22, 2003, 01:04:56 AM
Quote
It's a stupid EULA, of course, but any AmigaOne owners running AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 on it under UAE are breaking the licensing conditions - which automatically invalidates the license according to the EULA itself.

Note that, both Amiga Forever  (bundled with WinUAE) and AmigaOne (bundled with PPC Linux UAE) has a valid license from Amiga Inc…
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Hammer on August 22, 2003, 01:16:22 AM
Quote

bhoggett wrote:
@Lando

Quote
Unless the PC already had AmigaOS installed when you bought it, you're still breaking the EULA. This also includes AmgaOnes that come pre-installed with Linux. To install UAE and run OS3.5 or 3.9 would be in breach of the EULA.


That's absolutely true. Even though the AmigaOne may be both "Amiga-branded" and "Amiga-licensed", it does not satisfy the qualification that AmigaOS must be installed on it when you buy it.

It's a stupid EULA, of course, but any AmigaOne owners running AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 on it under UAE are breaking the licensing conditions - which automatically invalidates the license according to the EULA itself.

Note that Amiga Forever 5.x has an existing AmigaOS 3.1…
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 22, 2003, 01:28:19 AM
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
It's a stupid EULA, of course, but any AmigaOne owners running AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 on it under UAE are breaking the licensing conditions - which automatically invalidates the license according to the EULA itself.

Note that, both Amiga Forever  (bundled with WinUAE) and AmigaOne (bundled with PPC Linux UAE) has a valid license from Amiga Inc…


A valid license for what?

What does the license say? "This license allows you to break Haage & Partner's EULA for AmigaOS3.5 and 3.9?"

Can you scan (or type) it in?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: mdwh2 on August 22, 2003, 02:13:04 AM
Quote

MarkTime wrote:
1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120
2.) Copy Microsoft Word which you didn't pay for and run it.

Act 2 is piracy, right?

1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X on Apple Branded hardware for $120
2.) Copy Mac OS X to your Pegasos and run it, though you don't have a license to do so.
The situation being discussed here is:

1.) Buy a License to run Mac OS X, which you then install on your Pegasos. A piece of text (be it in the manual, or a pop-up box on the software) tells you that you're only allowed to do certain things with it. Irrelevant, since you've already paid for a license to use it according to the law.

Quote

Now, with that said, in just a very few countries you have a few extra options, even if the contract says otherwise, but UK and Germany are not on the list of countries that allow you to change the license to run on any machine that you want.
But it's the companies who stick these EULA in who are the ones who want to change the license to what they want, *after* the contract of purchase has taken place, and despite the fact that the End User may not wish to Agree with their changed license.

Oh, and anyone who replies to this thread automatically agrees to give me lots of money ;)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: kokigami on August 22, 2003, 02:25:42 AM
From rigger

Quote

However unlikely that Amiga, Inc would be knocking on any one individuals door demanding recompensement for breach of contract, the EULA is a valid contract, . The fact will remain that you are in breach of contract if you have used the product in violation of the EULA. This leaves each individual to decide if they will honor the contract and if again however unlikely you are found in breach you should be prepared to accept the consequences.


Well, there's the rub.

First, EULA- End Users License Agreement- only applies, as its name implies, to the End User. Therefore, Sustainable or not, McEwen's comments only apply to end Users.  They are not, and cannot be, a threat to Genesi, as they are not End Users. At least not in their functions as resellers.

But we are arguing definitions when we should be arguing principle. I personally see this particular type of Eula article as an attack upon us, the end users. It says, if you want to use our software, you have to submit to our monopoly. And we should not take it. It is time for an End Users  organization. I will post more on this soon..We do not have to make this choice inidvidually. We can make it together. And we can force them to deal with us.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Hammer on August 22, 2003, 02:26:47 AM
Quote

Lando wrote:
Quote

Hammer wrote:
Quote
It's a stupid EULA, of course, but any AmigaOne owners running AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 on it under UAE are breaking the licensing conditions - which automatically invalidates the license according to the EULA itself.

Note that, both Amiga Forever  (bundled with WinUAE) and AmigaOne (bundled with PPC Linux UAE) has a valid license from Amiga Inc…


A valid license for what?

What does the license say? "This license allows you to break Haage & Partner's EULA for AmigaOS3.5 and 3.9?"

In the case of Amiga Forever 5.3; the license is for the preinstalled AmigaOS 1.x/2.x/3.1, Workbench diskimages and the Kickstart ROMs.
 
Refer to
http://www.amigaforever.com/faq.html
http://www.cloanto.com/kb/3-114.html

Amiga Forever 5.3 comes with preinstalled AmigaOS 3.1 setup i.e. existing AmigaOS setup.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: mdwh2 on August 22, 2003, 02:28:02 AM
@iamaboringperson

You are correct in that there are various ways for a contract to be made. IANAL, so I'm not sure on the exact conditions, but I find it hard to believe that the EULA-style "click an Okay button" would count.

For starters, there's no evidence that the user properly understood what he's agreeing to, and indeed, that he is agreeing to something. If I'm signing my name, that's widely known to be a method of signing a contract. If I go to a website, select "Purchase", then type in my debit card number, it's pretty clear that I was fully consenting to want to make a contract of purchase. In a verbal contract, the people involved can make clear in words that they both agree to the terms. With an EULA, the user may not agree with the terms at all, and I don't think the fact that the user is using the software is any proof *since he is fully entitled to use his legally purchased software, without having to agree to any post-purchase conditions*.

Furthermore, there's the fact that you are forced to click the "I agree" button in order to use the software, so it's not really a contract entered into freely and without coercion.

What if I block someone's way and say "If you walk past me, you agree to pay me £100", or perhaps put a sticker on my head saying "Anyone who shakes my hand must pay me £10 a week for the rest of their life". These seem silly examples, but I'm finding it hard to see how these differ from EULAs. Indeed, if EULAs are found to be legally enforceable anywhere, then I'm writing software that sticks "You agree to pay me lots-of-money" in the installer - I'm sure I'll get quite a few people who don't read the small print;)

Lastly there are other reasons why the EULA can never have been considered to be agreed too, for example if the user does a manual installation (or somehow bypasses that bit of the installation), or if someone else installs it for him.

A lot of people seem to be emphasing that a EULA is a License - may I also remind people that the A stands for Agreement, so without free agreement from both sides, there is no EULA.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 22, 2003, 02:39:02 AM
@Hammer

Actually, neither AmigaForever or AmigaOne satisfy the EULA of AmigaOS 3.9, which states that AmigaOS must be installed on the system when it is bought on order for you to be able to install OS 3.9. So, only AmigaOne machines which come pre-installed (and pre-configured) with UAE and OS 3.1 may install OS 3.9, and AFAIK no PCs are shipped with AmigaForever pre-installed. People who have ordered AmigaOne boards and built their own system do not qualify.

The Cloanto site provides information on HOW to install 3.5 and 3.9, but there's nothing there to indicate it gets special dispensation from the licensing conditions.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 22, 2003, 02:45:02 AM
@mdwh2
IMHO, EULAs as implemented today are an abomination.

The only way to really make a EULA valid is to ensure the buyer can peruse it before he buys the product. Ergo, software packaging should have the entire EULA printed on the box cover, and anyone selling software on-line should have a link to the EULA for every product they sell.

Only if the purchaser is given the option to agree or refuse the EULA conditions before he parts with his money would the EULA agreement be fair.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Lando on August 22, 2003, 02:46:29 AM
Quote

Quote

What does the license say? "This license allows you to break Haage & Partner's EULA for AmigaOS3.5 and 3.9?"

Can you scan (or type) it in?

Refer to
 http://www.amigaforever.com/faq.html
http://www.cloanto.com/kb/3-114.html


There is no reference there to the AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 EULA.

Quote
Amiga Forever 5.3 comes with preinstalled AmigaOS 3.1 setup.


Irrelevant.  The AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 EULA's state that your computer must be an Amiga-labelled or licensed computer, and must have had AmigaOS already installed when you bought it.

Using any OS other than the 3.1 on AmigaForever is a breach of the EULA.  Likewise using them on AmigaOnes purchased with Linux pre-installed or as bare boards.

Of course, Cloanto could negotiate with Haage & partner to get a new version of OS3.9 with the EULA restrictions removed  (like the one for Amithlon / AmigaOS XL).

Likewise, Amiga Inc (or Eyetech) could come to some arrangement with H&P to get a version that allows AmigaOne owners to install it.

Until then, they are breaking the EULA.  It's as simple as that.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 22, 2003, 02:49:15 AM
Quote

Step wrote:
@iamaboringperson

Sorry, my point was to say that a EULA could be valid, if handled correctly. The problem is, they are not.
Take the windows update as an example, theres usually an EULA involved, what happens when the OS decides to bug when the interaction with the user is to take place, and hit the i agree button itself, would the user be tied to the agreement ?, ofcourse not.
Theres all sorts of problems with electronic stuff like this and unlike a signature on a paper, where the actual agreement and the signature is tied to eachother, an electronic "i agree" button does not say who actually pushed the button, nor if that person is of legal age etc...

If it doesn't work, I would say the contract is invalid.
If the person who pushed the button was under age, I would say the same conditions apply as though a signature were required.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Hammer on August 22, 2003, 03:01:18 AM
Quote
AFAIK no PCs are shipped with AmigaForever pre-installed.

It can be side stepped (bend rules) i.e. ship and sell the X86 PC with Amiga Forever pre-installed between the two legal entities. The legal entities can be your mom, dad, yourself and any artificial legal entity. A token cost can be transferred e.g. $1…

PTY LTD off-the-shelf companies cost about $900~1200 AUD to setup in Australia. Australian Business Number (ABN) is easily obtainable through relevant authorities and it's doesn't cost a cent.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Trev on August 22, 2003, 03:06:01 AM
Quote

Actually, neither AmigaForever or AmigaOne satisfy the EULA of AmigaOS 3.9, which states that AmigaOS must be installed on the system when it is bought on order for you to be able to install OS 3.9.


If that's true, then I can't install OS3.9 on my Amiga 1200--it didn't come with an OS pre-installed. :-/

Quick note about piracy: In the United States, violating the terms of a valid license agreement is not necessarily copyright infringement. Emulation of hardware to run properly licensed software is definitely legal (Sony v. Connectix being the landmark case), and running properly licensed software on emulated hardware is protected fair use. So, whether or not Amiga's EULA restricts the use of their software to specific hardware is irrelevant. That portion of the license agreement would not be enforceable.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: tonyw on August 22, 2003, 03:15:05 AM
I purchased a new copy of OS3.9 last week. It has the EULA printed on the included foldout (inside the jewel case). Like the "Click Me" agreement, I would have to go back to the retailer and ask for my money back on the opened goods, if I disagreed with the terms.

If it interests anyone, I looked up on the local Apple site the email address for the local PR person and sent her an email.

In the email I posed the hypothetical situation of the person running Linux on his generic (non-Apple) PPC hardware, then installing the GPL Mac-On-Linux, then finally installing a legitimately-purchased copy of OS X.

I then asked for an expression of Apple's opinion on this matter - whether it was:
(1) piracy;
(2) a Breach of Contract; or
(3) just a new market for Apple.

Strangely enough, I have received no reply after a week. If I ever get one, I'll let you know.

tony

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Hammer on August 22, 2003, 03:16:45 AM
Quote
Amiga-labelled or licensed computer,

Define the word  'computer'. A virtual machine can be a computer (i.e. it calculates).

Quote
The AmigaOS 3.5 and 3.9 EULA's state that your computer must be an Amiga-labelled or licensed computer

You got to first define the word 'computer'. Vague definitions may not be upheld by the court of law…  

To bad AmigaOS 3.9’s EULA is not tight enough.
Quote

and must have had AmigaOS already installed when you bought it

Covered that in the last post.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 22, 2003, 03:18:11 AM
@mdwh2
(Sorry, whats IANAL?)
Quote
but I find it hard to believe that the EULA-style "click an Okay button" would count.
Apparently placing a sticker, or using your fingerprint are two other ways of 'signing' a contract, so I would imagine it does count.

Quote
For starters, there's no evidence that the user properly understood what he's agreeing to, and indeed, that he is agreeing to something.
As with a hard-copy contract, there is no guarantee that it was read - or understood, however since above the space above the dotted line (!!) there are usually words that read somthing like: "I have read [the contract] and agree to the above... bla bla bla, sign here:". It's pretty much the same as pressing a button, and should be treated the same in court - should the matter ever arise
Quote
With an EULA, the user may not agree with the terms at all, and I don't think the fact that the user is using the software is any proof *since he is fully entitled to use his legally purchased software, without having to agree to any post-purchase conditions*.
Not quite true. You buy the licence, and if you find that you disagree, you can't(or shouldn't) just continue using it, you should send it back.  It is also quite possible to disagree with the terms of a hard-copy contract, yet still sign it. Signing or pressing a button are both ways to seal the agreement, therefore the contract is made, which means there is assumed to be an understanding and agreement. Like I said: a "contract" is just a fancy name for agreement, and a contract isn't really made unless all parties agree to somthing - that is all a contract is.
Quote
Furthermore, there's the fact that you are forced to click the "I agree" button in order to use the software, so it's not really a contract entered into freely and without coercion.
What coercion? Who's coercing you? It is exactly the same as signing a document before you are allowed to drive away in a new car, or live in a new appartment.
Quote
What if I block someone's way and say "If you walk past me, you agree to pay me £100", or perhaps put a sticker on my head saying "Anyone who shakes my hand must pay me £10 a week for the rest of their life".
There would have to be a concious effort to do so. Such an agreement is fine if the other party agree's  with out dures etc...
Quote
Indeed, if EULAs are found to be legally enforceable anywhere, then I'm writing software that sticks "You agree to pay me lots-of-money" in the installer - I'm sure I'll get quite a few people who don't read the small print;)

Lastly there are other reasons why the EULA can never have been considered to be agreed too, for example if the user does a manual installation (or somehow bypasses that bit of the installation), or if someone else installs it for him.
Just remember that it is exactly as having a representative from Microsoft(for example) comming into your home and asking you to sign a document before you use the software. I guess a button is more convenient for all parties concerned. Just imagine if in the future, you had to actually sign a document. There is really not much difference. Except for the convenience

Quote
A lot of people seem to be emphasing that a EULA is a License - may I also remind people that the A stands for Agreement, so without free agreement from both sides, there is no EULA.
Agreed! :-D
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 22, 2003, 03:33:21 AM
Quote
If that's true, then I can't install OS3.9 on my Amiga 1200--it didn't come with an OS pre-installed. :-/
Actually it did. All Amigas newer than the A1000(except some A3000s) came with the OS installed. The Kickstart ROM is .5 meg of an OS! That is alot!!
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: mdwh2 on August 22, 2003, 04:13:29 AM
Quote

iamaboringperson wrote:
(Sorry, whats IANAL?)
I Am Not A Lawyer ;)
Quote

As with a hard-copy contract, there is no guarantee that it was read - or understood, however since above the space above the dotted line (!!) there are usually words that read somthing like: "I have read [the contract] and agree to the above... bla bla bla, sign here:". It's pretty much the same as pressing a button, and should be treated the same in court - should the matter ever arise
True, but "sign on the dotted line" is widely known to be a method of signing a contract, clicking on a button isn't, which is why I argue that there needs to be extra consideration as to whether it really counts. It would seem a rather bizarre situtation if *absolutely anything* can be counted as meaning agreement, and that one side gets to decide this method, without worrying about what the other party thinks.
Quote
Not quite true. You buy the licence, and if you find that you disagree, you can't(or shouldn't) just continue using it, you should send it back.
I think this is a crucial part of the argument - is it the case that the user buys a licence to use the software, and then afterwards the software tries to enforce additional terms and conditions (the argument being that if they can be enticed into clicking "I agree", then they can be enforced)? Or are you saying that the user buys the licence without being allowed to see the terms and conditions until after the money has changed hands?

Well, if Amiga Inc wishes to send me £30, plus a bit extra to cover p+p, I'll send them back OS3.9 since I don't agree with the EULA, and I'll be glad to know that I'm doing my bit in helping the Amiga market;)

Quote
What coercion? Who's coercing you? It is exactly the same as signing a document before you are allowed to drive away in a new car, or live in a new appartment.

I sign these things before I hand over the money. If I came home one day to find that I wasn't able to get into my flat because the locks had been changed, and the landlord said he'd let me back in only when I signed some new conditions, I'd be furious! And this would be downright illegal for him to do. The fact that I might have the choice to move elsewhere is irrelevant - we already made a contract.

Quote
There would have to be a concious effort to do so. Such an agreement is fine if the other party agree's  with out dures etc...
Really? Does this mean you will send me money for posting to this thread? (see my earlier message) ;)

Quote
Just remember that it is exactly as having a representative from Microsoft(for example) comming into your home and asking you to sign a document before you use the software.
Yes, I agree, it is like that. And if a Microsoft representative turned up at my house saying he wanted me to sign something for software I've already paid for, I'll tell him to piss off, and be well within my rights to do so.

If on the other hand people were being asked to sign contracts before we paid for them, then that would be fair enough. And then hopefully people would wonder why they're being asked to sign legal documents to use software, when we don't have to do this for any other common product.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 22, 2003, 04:21:50 AM
@Olegil

Small difference is, that it wasn't(isn't) clear wether Eyetech actually paid for the
Magig-Packs or not while it is clear that BB paid the OS3.9s.

@Dan

Whats the difference between bundling and "selling together" ?
Tell you what, it is just a fancy way of saying just the same.

It may be that they would have to list both items seperatly on the bill, like:

 Pegasos 2-mobo Euro 299.99
AmigaOS-3.9         Euro      0.1  :-P

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Wolfe on August 22, 2003, 05:01:10 AM
Quote
First, EULA- End Users License Agreement- only applies, as its name implies, to the End User. Therefore, Sustainable or not, McEwen's comments only apply to end Users.  They are not, and cannot be, a threat to Genesi, as they are not End Users. At least not in their functions as resellers.


Are you a lawyer?  In a court of law, an end user can be anyone currently in possession of the item in question.  If genesi sells, packages or promotes OS X with the Pegasos they can be liable.  End User is a generic term.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Acill on August 22, 2003, 05:38:18 AM
@ Mark Time
Quote
Now, I have made a HUGE POINT of this...and REPEATEDLY....breaking a EULA...and in the case of Mac OS X, there is no dispute the EULA exists and is clear...is PIRACY.


First off this isnt bout OS X. We all have read your comments on that issue. I for one agree with that SOME. However with 1.0 to 3.9 for classic Amiga I see no reason at all why we cant install it on an emulation system. The old hardware is slowly getting old and soon will be gone. We see systems every day that wont boot any longer here. I've lost systems myself. Amiga Inc makesno money at all from ANY lassic hardware. NONE. They do make money on the sales of 3.9 in some respects. Why not install it on any system that can run it under emulation? Thats just MORE sales.

NOW, as for OS4 thats totally a diffrent story. I agree 100% that this should not be on anything other then an AMIGA. The new hadware needs to sell, and this is how it will sell. With a strong and good looking OS4.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE OLD SOFTWARE?!!? LEt it be sold and installed on what people have!
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: AmigaHeretic on August 22, 2003, 05:39:00 AM
2 questions:

1.  Being that Mac OS X has a far larger audience with many more 'modern' apps available than Amiga OS 3.9, why is Genesi not offering to bundle Mac OS X with the Pegasus at the customer's request/cost as this would help them sell more systems?

2.  Do you think Apple would care that Genesi was bundling Mac OS X with their hardware?

IMO:

As far as the debate over the EULA goes, I don't think Apple would ever go after 'John Doe users'  that purchased MAC OS X legally and run it on hardware other than Apples hardware. But,  If a company is selling Mac OS X with their hardware (ie. Pegasus) then I think they would go after that 'company'.

Selling Mac OS with a computer IS the same as selling a "Macintosh Clone" computer.

We already know how Apple feels about clones.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 22, 2003, 06:22:43 AM
Quote
sign on the dotted line" is widely known to be a method of signing a contract, clicking on a button isn't,
Actually it's just more traditional, we live in a time where there are all sorts of new technologies, and in most countries we are lucky enough that contract law allows for a variety of ways to make a contract.  Did you know that in Australia illiterate aboriginal people sometimes sign documents using nothing but a 'cross' on the piece of paper. How this would effect a court case I don't know. But it's nice to know the flexability is there.

Quote
which is why I argue that there needs to be extra consideration as to whether it really counts. It would seem a rather bizarre situtation if *absolutely anything* can be counted as meaning agreement, and that one side gets to decide this method, without worrying about what the other party thinks.
IMO if you don't like to sign - don't sign, if you don't like to click - don't click. Some people would see clicking on 'I agree' as being much more convenient than signing a document and sending it through the post for example.
Quote
I sign these things before I hand over the money. If I came home one day to find that I wasn't able to get into my flat because the locks had been changed, and the landlord said he'd let me back in only when I signed some new conditions, I'd be furious! And this would be downright illegal for him to do. The fact that I might have the choice to move elsewhere is irrelevant - we already made a contract.
Well, imagine if you had to sit in the computer shop and sign on the dotted line there? There are not many other alternatives, that I can imagine. Especialy not ones that are as convienient for the end user.
I believe that these clickable contracts(hey I invented a term there!) are mainly there for the end users convenience, i think some old software just had registration cards to send in.

Quote
Really? Does this mean you will send me money for posting to this thread? (see my earlier message) ;)
What it means is that if you said "I sell XYZ product, send me an email telling me that you want it, I'll send it out to you and bill you for it", and if I were to do as you instructed, I have made an order, a contract(or agreement) has been made, and you would be obliged to send what I ordered, and I would be obliged to pay for it.
Quote
If on the other hand people were being asked to sign contracts before we paid for them, then that would be fair enough.
Do you think it should change?
Quote
And then hopefully people would wonder why they're being asked to sign legal documents to use software, when we don't have to do this for any other common product.
Most other products are not subject to some of the legal problems that software is, eg. Piracy.

@all
IMO it is really helpful for everybody if they learn a bit about contracts.
Did you know that when you buy an item from a shop, they give you the item, you give the money - there a contract has just been made.
If you use a vending machine, contracts still applicable.

There is a wider definition of the word 'contract' than most people think. :-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 22, 2003, 06:37:23 AM
http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/ (http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/)
:-) Found a resouce that might help, I don't know how good it is however :-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: tintin on August 22, 2003, 08:23:53 AM
Be careful who you call an end user.  This article may shed some light:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23073.html
I think the whole discussion between Genesi and A.inc has it's foundation in similar interpretations of the law by one side or the other.  I don't know who's right or wrong in this.  Just that things are not always crystal clear.
I hope this contributed in a positive way to the discussion.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: iamaboringperson on August 22, 2003, 08:28:34 AM
So who's tintin?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: tintin on August 22, 2003, 08:34:12 AM
Nobody special, just an old time Belgian Amiga user  (Still have a 4000/040 somewhere) dropping in now and then to see what's happening in the Amiga comunity these days.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Fats on August 22, 2003, 10:08:56 AM
Quote

Kronos wrote:
 Pegasos 2-mobo Euro 299.99
AmigaOS-3.9         Euro      0.1  :-P



OK, but then in some countries like here in Belgium you will need to offer the AmigaOS-3.9 for that same price even if you don't order the Pegasos 2-mobo.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 22, 2003, 12:32:15 PM
@tintin

Nobody special? pfft :-o  Welcome to Amiga.org(or welcome back) :-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Rassilon on August 22, 2003, 12:36:18 PM
Lots of peoples argurments here stem from the clash of the 3.9 EULA with AmigaForever/Amithlon etc.

But they are not the same marketable products - therefore its more than likely that they have different EULA's, thus rendering your argument void.

It would clash with the original OS3.9 EULA if you tried to install it on AmigaForever, or perhaps an A1, but if you you used the appropriate version, i.e. the A1 version of OS4  on an A1 the EULA would be written accordingly.

Anyway, as far as the A1's go for all intents and purposes they were created with AOS4 in mind, with the intention that it would ship with them. Therefore theoretically they would come preinstalled with OS4 if they could thus fulfilling the EULA of OS3.9.

Rassilon
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Serpi on August 22, 2003, 01:08:24 PM
Quote
Because more people want AmigaOS?

This is the thing I'm wondering about in the whole thread...
Why the hell do Pegasos/MOS people want OS3.9?
I mean, it's always told that that MOS is that superior and does (or will do) everything a classic Amiga can do.
And as there are so much people telling that the TCP/IP stack in OS3.9 is not licenced (as an argument why it isn't so bad not to have one in MOS) do they now want that thing from the OS3.9 cd?
The only thing you need a real AmigaOS would be for using UAE, but - as MOS is such a good Amiga emulation - you do only need it for hardware banging software, most of them classic games, but surely not a single one that needs OS3.5/3.9, better to get OS1.2 to 3.1 for that (there is surely no hardware banging software that needs more then OS3.1).
So, why does a Pegasos owner should want OS3.9?

(I really mean this question serious, no flaming!)

Ciao, Alfred
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 22, 2003, 01:15:22 PM
@Serpi

No problem with your question. Really the only interest in ) OS3.9 for MOS users like myself is convience. OS3.9's biggest plus is it bundles tons of freeware off Aminet that Amigans use daily and take for granted. It basically saves time so you don't have to scour Aminet for additional LIBS and such. MOS user can get by without it just fine, but it does add value.

I'd say think of installing OS3.1 fresh on an Amiga. You'd spend alot of time on Aminet adding all the little tidbits you want to spruce up your system. Don't get me wrong, MOS1.4 is much more complete than OS3.1 but you get my point.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Serpi on August 22, 2003, 01:29:00 PM
Quote
OS3.9's biggest plus is it bundles tons of freeware off Aminet that Amigans use daily and take for granted.

I never noticed that when using OS3.9, what software do you mean?
Really, I cannot remember "tons of freeware" that I have installed together with OS3.9; most things are part of OS3.9 (new icon.library, workbench.library, the Dock, aml.library, etc) or not so free software (Genesis, cd file system) or it's ARexx, where people again are telling, it's doubtfull that it's really licenced for OS3.x.
And from the few usefull things in the contribution folder, that are *really* freeware, there surely exists already a newer version in Aminet, so you should better go and get some AMinet cds.
Quote
Don't get me wrong, MOS1.4 is much more complete than OS3.1 but you get my point.

I believe that MOS1.4 has more features then OS3.1 (even when still missing a few OS3.1 features/parts) but it seems it's far away from completing compatibility to the last official AmigaOS, that's the only reason I see for this.
And so, no, I do not really get your point, I'm afraid. I think, instead of buying OS3.9 cds, Genesi should work harder to get MOS more compatible with AmigaOS.

Ciao, Alfred
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: olegil on August 22, 2003, 01:30:28 PM
Eeek. After having played around with 3.5 on my Access board I wouldn't touch anything below 3.9 with a 40 foot pole ;-)

It's the SMALL things that make the BIG difference. Ironic, but imho true. :-P
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: redrumloa on August 22, 2003, 01:37:36 PM
@Serpi

Personally I wouldn't bother buying an OS3.9 CD if I purchased a Pegasos right now. I am just trying to explain why someone might.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: olegil on August 22, 2003, 03:47:26 PM
@Wolfe and whoever you replied to:

Well, that's all nice, but my real point was NOT that Genesi  are in breach of the EULA. I wrote that it's questionable because they're effectively tricking end users into breaking it. Why aren't anyone commenting on this? I must be either dead right or dead wrong, I'm thinking.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: kolla on August 22, 2003, 04:08:51 PM
Just so it is clear what is discussed:

AmigaOS 3.5 License (http://amiga.nvg.org/moro/OS35.pdf)

AmigaOS3.9 License (http://amiga.nvg.org/moro/OS39.pdf)

Note the files are quite big, scans of the booklet that comes with OS3.5 as well as the (quite identical) one that is printed on the inside of the CD cover.  If there is any interest, I could also scan the german versions.

As is obvious from the licenses, no use of OS3.5 or OS3.9 on UAE, be it Amiga4ever or not, is allowed (Amiga4ever does not provide a "licensed computer", it is just a software package) and also it violates the license to modify and creating derivatives of any part of the "Amiga Software", this is what we know as patching, meaning that replacing rom modules, creating custom kickstarts, GhostBuster version of Sys:Prefs/Workbench, patched locales and whatnot is also violating that License.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Dan on August 22, 2003, 04:28:07 PM
Quote

Kronos wrote:
@Dan

Whats the difference between bundling and "selling together" ?
Tell you what, it is just a fancy way of saying just the same.

It may be that they would have to list both items seperatly on the bill, like:

 Pegasos 2-mobo Euro 299.99
AmigaOS-3.9         Euro      0.1  :-P


That is only part of it, it would also require to be ordered as separate items and be packaged as such just like if you bought it from an amigashop.
If BB want to be totally in the clear, i think he must make it possible for people to buy AmigaOS without buying a Pegasos.

If stating that you can run another os under emulation is to encourage people to commit a crime, which in it self is a crime and  if the EULA is H&Ps or Amiga Incs and if Amiga Inc in that case can uphold H&Ps EULA is another matter and for a court to decide.

And shouldn´t that be AmigaOS3.9 0.01Euro. :-)

As for EULAs in general an I Agree button is surely not good enough here in Sweden.
It doesn´t even say WHO it is that agrees!!! My cat?? the neighbours two year old??? a senile old man that passed by???
How can it be a personal license if anybody can agree with it????
If You had to enter your name and adress and the serial code from the software disk to agree that would be better.

And   then there is the whole EULA is not printed on the box issue.
You can´t force a contract on somebody after they have bought something!
What if Amiga Inc wants a monthly fee if you use an AmigaOS???? Hey, here is the new contract now pay us.
I mean really, be reasonable about this.

If Apple doesn´t want people to run OS X on non-Apple-machines then they should print that on the box.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: tintin on August 22, 2003, 10:10:06 PM
@redrumloa
thanx for the welcome, this seems like a lively website... didn't know the Amiga comunity was still that alive

@all
Contracts such as EULAs are supposed to be made between willing parties, and need to be negotiable if one side doesn't agree with the terms. But some EULA contracts might fall under the definition of a Contract of Adhesion, a legal term that means one party to the agreement has tremendous power, and there's no meaningful way to negotiate the terms.

Of course, anyone can click the "I Decline" button at the bottom of a EULA. But if you do, the software won't install or you won't be able to use the service. The binary nature of the EULA accept-or-decline rules render negotiating contract terms with a software company impossible for the average user.

In the US the federal digital signature law makes it clear that click-wrap contracts are enforceable, but there always has to be a meaningful way to say "no". "Any ambiguities in a contract would be interpreted by the courts against the drafter".  The question thus becomes : "Do we have a case of an ambiguous EULA here ?"
I'm sure lawyers can argue about this but it's merky waters if you ask me.  So anyone asking for a clear "yes" or "no" is asking a lot IMO.


Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: mdwh2 on August 22, 2003, 10:31:34 PM
Quote

iamaboringperson wrote:
IMO if you don't like to sign - don't sign, if you don't like to click - don't click. Some people would see clicking on 'I agree' as being much more convenient than signing a document and sending it through the post for example.
So how do I use my software without clicking the "I agree"? If this was done as a seperate option, so that the software was still installable and useable without having to agree, then I agree that such a contract would be fair and enforceable.

Quote

Well, imagine if you had to sit in the computer shop and sign on the dotted line there? There are not many other alternatives, that I can imagine. Especialy not ones that are as convienient for the end user.
I believe that these clickable contracts(hey I invented a term there!) are mainly there for the end users convenience, i think some old software just had registration cards to send in.
Signing versus clicking isn't the issue. The issue is seeing the terms before paying, versus seeing these terms only after paying. The issue is being given the choice of whether you want to agree or not, versus finding out that the thing you paid and made a contract for doesn't work until you give into this additional contract.
Quote

Quote
Really? Does this mean you will send me money for posting to this thread? (see my earlier message) ;)
What it means is that if you said "I sell XYZ product, send me an email telling me that you want it, I'll send it out to you and bill you for it", and if I were to do as you instructed, I have made an order, a contract(or agreement) has been made, and you would be obliged to send what I ordered, and I would be obliged to pay for it.
But EULAs don't work like you describe at all! In your example, the terms are laid out before payment, and a fully working product is then sent out without requiring additional hidden contracts. What we have is an arbitrary action that is legal for the user to do, and an action that they would probably want to do even if they don't agree to some contract (be it posting to this thread, or installing the software). Someone saying "if you do this, then you agree with that" doesn't make it a contract, unless "this" is something that they would only do because they actually agree with "that".

Quote
Do you think it should change?
I think that either: The terms should be available before payment - if it's online, you should be made to agree to them via an "I Agree" click; if it's offline, the salesperson should draw the person's attention to them, and state that they must agree to them before as part of the purchase. Or alternatively, the software should be installable and useable without having to agree to an additional contract.

You'll see that nowhere am I suggesting we go through the process of signing a contract, so the argument that a EULA is more convenient doesn't hold. It's only more "convenient" for the company :/

Quote

Most other products are not subject to some of the legal problems that software is, eg. Piracy.
But Piracy is covered by law. How does an additional contract help matters here? The only use I can see is that it clarifies what they can and can't do (as opposed to trying to define the law itself).

Quote

Did you know that when you buy an item from a shop, they give you the item, you give the money - there a contract has just been made.
If you use a vending machine, contracts still applicable.
Exactly! The contract has already been made when I'm sitting here trying to install my legally purchased software. Which is why there is no need to agree to *another* contract.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 04:28:33 AM
@MarkTime

In Marktime world, even if you pay for the software you use you are still called a Pirate...  I'm pretty happy (with sugar on top) that I don't have to live there!

You can run as it stand, period!

You do not need any ROM, period!

You could be called pirate if you didn't own somekind of ROM needed to run the software that was on CD, because you wouln't owned it, period!

I guess it sum it all, period!

P-S. Damn this period key! ;-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 04:30:32 AM
@Kronos
The question regarding Amiga EULA is not weather BB payed for OS3.9, but wether BB had payed for 3.1 ROMS

@Rassilon
> It would clash with the original OS3.9 EULA if you tried to install it on
> AmigaForever, or perhaps an A1, but if you you used the appropriate version,
> i.e. the A1 version of OS4 on an A1 the EULA would be written accordingly.

Do you thing that it would clash with AmigaForever an Amiga licensee!? Why!? It's already have installed 3.1, don't see where's the problem... It's officially endorsment by Amiga Inc...


@Kolla
It isn't a 'licensed computer'? Well it's a licensed product and it runs on a computer besides, it got a sticker!! ;-)

Now seriously, it got all its hardware components licensed albeit in a virtual form so... I guess it's still is a 'licensed computer' after all...
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: mdwh2 on August 23, 2003, 05:27:16 AM
pixie:

"it got a sticker!!"

In fact, the licence says "Amiga-labeled or Amiga-licensed" .. I've got a few Amiga labels lying around here, I could always stick them to my PC if necessary ;)

Hmm, whilst reading through, I noticed an interesting bit at the end:

"No amendment or modification of the License will be binding unless in writing and signed by Amiga."

I like that. Whilst we are assumed to have agreed to the License merely by reading it or using the software, we have to resort to strict official measures if we want to get Amiga to agree to anything. Why can't I just post a copy of my preferred License to Amiga, and say "If you don't send a letter back saying No, I'll assume you agree with it"? If EULAs are supposedly for the consumer's convenience to avoid the hassle of signing, why doesn't the same logic apply to Amiga?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 23, 2003, 08:13:26 AM
@Pixie

Beeeep wrong  :-D

You don't need an Amiga-ROM to run 3.9 on MOS.

I even managed to run 3.9 by accident when I got my Peg  :-o

I just installed the HD from my A4000 to copy some files, but forgot it was setted
to a very high boot-pri. All over sudden I had Amidock and all that stuff
showing up  :-P  :-D
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 10:20:17 AM
@Kronos

Whopsie, ;-) didn't know that... that way my apologies...
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 10:21:50 AM
@mdwh2 :

For Gods sake, if it's an Amiga branded licensee it can't go against Amigas EULA, now can it!?? :-x
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: DaveP on August 23, 2003, 10:34:03 AM
Quote

So how do I use my software without clicking the "I agree"? If this was done as a seperate option, so that the software was still installable and useable without having to agree, then I agree that such a contract would be fair and enforceable.

You don't use the software if you cannot agree to the Ts and Cs under which it is sold. Send it back. Simple.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 23, 2003, 11:37:00 AM
@Dave

Or I play it the other way round:

I bought my SW at a shop (real or online doesn't matter), and ONLY those
terms visible at/before purchase form the contract I have with the dealer
or producer of said SW.


Thats how most courts see it in civilized countries.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 23, 2003, 11:39:34 AM
and furtherone:

Do you really think someone would just refund you on a allready opened
SW-package without putting up a fight ?

Thats why only what is visible from the outside form a valid contract.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: DaveP on August 23, 2003, 11:58:25 AM
@Kronos

As a consumer you have a right to return the product in most civilised countries if you do not agree with Ts and Cs found inside the package.

The contract is not between you and the vendor ( which is just a reseller )  - unless they stipulate extra Ts and Cs or negotiate a rebundling deal - but with you and the first boundary of sale.

You may not like licenses, nor how they are first put on display to the consumer, but that does not invalidate Bill McEwens statements on the matter nor does the existense of AmigaForever, Draco and the "Install-Emulation" icon.

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 23, 2003, 12:10:01 PM
@Dave

Don't know about your country, but here there simple are some limlitations
of what clauses can be put into a contract.
Anything that goes beyond it is not valid, but it DOES NOT automaticly invalid the
whole contract !!

Putting clauses in after the purchase (and thats what those EULA-requesters do)
does go beyound it.

Limiting a SW to be used only on ceratin HW can also go beyound it.

But I think the point is rather mood as H&P are the ones (exclusivly) distributing OS3.9
not Ainc, and I haven't seen Mr Haage complain (Iand don't think he ever will).

We can also be sure that AInc will never actually fight H&P over the rather foggie
question who owns what of AOS (as been seen with Amithlon).
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: DaveP on August 23, 2003, 12:12:50 PM
Kronos

IIRC H+P distributed under license from Amiga Inc, therefore it is Amiga Incs responsibility to enforce contravensions of the license ( unless the contract stipulates otherwise ).

Regards

Dave.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 23, 2003, 12:17:12 PM
Thats why I said it is foggy.

Ands who say that the 3.9s bought by BB aren't actually AmigaOSXL-packages
directly bought at H&P (those don't have the clause in the EULA).
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 23, 2003, 12:25:14 PM
@Kronos

Quote
But I think the point is rather mood as H&P are the ones (exclusivly) distributing OS3.9 not Ainc, and I haven't seen Mr Haage complain (Iand don't think he ever will).


H&P are the publishers. This does not automatically make the IP theirs, nor does it mean that the EULA is theirs. Furthermore, as H&P never paid Amiga Inc any money at all for OS 3.9, it's questionable whether their "exclusive distribution" contract is still valid. Amiga Inc certainly don't think so, and are happy to grant distribution rights to anyone else.

Quote
We can also be sure that AInc will never actually fight H&P over the rather foggie question who owns what of AOS (as been seen with Amithlon).

That's because of the money involved in the case being far more than any damages which could be extracted from H&P. Even the winner of such a case would be losing a great deal of money, and we all know Amiga Inc can't afford it.  Lack of legal action does not mean H&P own the IP, nor does it mean thay have been acting legally or correctly.  Unfortunately, in today's world the price of justice can sometimes be prohibitive.

I think you'll also find that EULAs are legally enforceable in Germany, even if you can't read them before you buy the product. Only those clauses which are illegal would  be exempt.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 23, 2003, 12:27:47 PM
@Kronos

Quote
Ands who say that the 3.9s bought by BB aren't actually AmigaOSXL-packages

Those are even more illegal, as they contain unlicensed copies of the Kickstart images.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: DaveP on August 23, 2003, 12:33:42 PM
I would hope MOS users that also helped boycott H+P over the Amithlon issue and the roms would make their feelings known to Bill Buck if this were the case.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bbrv on August 23, 2003, 01:27:16 PM
Good discussion!

Thank you.

R&B  :-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: mdwh2 on August 23, 2003, 03:49:23 PM
Quote

DaveP wrote:
You don't use the software if you cannot agree to the Ts and Cs under which it is sold. Send it back. Simple.
But it wasn't sold under those Ts and Cs.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 03:57:33 PM
One thing I forguet though Kronos, was AmigaOS3.9 implicitly need the AmigaOS3.1 roms to run, wether MacOSX don't*! ;-b

Damn! You're even more pirate then those pirates who run MacOSX!! :-o By this I assume that you understand Marktime logic that is!!

What it really means!? I really don't know, I've only now started this intensive course on Marktime rethoric fallowed by english-portuguese so that I can fully grasp his thought. As far as I understood, this could well mean that you have two wooden legs instead of one! :-) Once you're on Marktime world you cannot escape! :-o :-o Woooo

P.S- Before someone starts to beat me up, and by this I do mean you Kronos :-P, I do know you had an Amiga before and therefore already acquired the Amiga Roms (how could you have AmigaOS3.9 HD running in any other way, I only wish for you sake that you have as I do your Amiga sleeping while you use AOS3.9, or this very bad guys named Amiga Inc. will get on you, you've been warned), its only this PegPong thingie that's getting on me! :-D
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 03:58:51 PM
I don't understand all this nit picking about AmigaOS EULA especially when introduced by Redrumloa which ought to know better about this kind of Amiga related issues, particularly when he's one of the moderators at Amiga.org, one of the most important sites related to Amiga.

You can say you are not pro-Genesi biased and I may even agree to a certain degree, but you're certaintly are pro-anti-Amiga.inc biased! I guess everyone needs have to have their own agenda, whether it may be pro-Genesi, pro-Amiga pro-anti-Amiga, pro-anti-Genesi, and so on...

The trend nowadays seems to be that everything Amiga do or says must be evil, so everyone  is in their legitim right to attack them whenever possible, doesn't matter how trivial is what been said, as long as it implies Amiga Inc and something said against Genesi, and the mudsluming begins, everyone starts shouting without thinking a bit if there's substance at all for making the first shoot.

And if Bill McEwen says someone had arrested his family, which I don't know or care a bit  if it's true or not, there's always some avanger that when failing to prove if he indeed has or hasn't really been arrested by this guy, does see if he is indeed marryed, if he indeed has a soon, and so on... but worst, this guys are proud to know the 'truth', no matter what truth is*!! Pe lea se... Maybe the next thing these people will ask to Rich is when they heard Bill got a new dog, urge Rich to get the licensees for them to see wether Bill has lied or not..

Well, if it this was some other user who got no implicit duties (or rights) of moderation, but Redrumloa!? But then he have the right to apply some censors.. ahem, moderation on flames stirred up by some others, odd isn't it!?

I mostly respect Redrumloa if not for the well balanced post he usually do.. There's nothing wrong with being biased you know, if doing consistently, if you have the arguments to defend your cause but there's some limits implicits by your moderation status that you shoul be more aware, at least on my own opinion, if anyone care to give a f*ck about them, that is..

*As you should have guessed I am talking about Rich Woods, and no matter how valuable his work on behalf as been as far as the courts papers go and matters at some degree, he is stretching the line too far, but it's not only his fault, if his fault at all it's this compelling urge to know everything Amiga related by some guys (not gays :-D), most who doesn't give a toss about Amiga is nowadays, who still in the past, who still think Amiga owns them anything, oddly enough there's few if any at all that had bought a coupon, a Amiga Party Pack...
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: bhoggett on August 23, 2003, 04:13:21 PM
@pixie

What is your problem?

The thread discusses the legal issues surrounding the OS 3.5/3.9 EULA. It's a valid and reasonable topic for discussion, as so far it has stayed on-topic for the most part.

Now you seem to be suggesting that redrumloa is out of order for challenging a statement by Bill McEwen?  Wha' ?

If we were all to just take everyone's word at face value and not question anything we'd be a very sad and sorry bunch, and a pretty stupid one too.

Of course if anyone was stalking McEwen's family they were way out of order, whatever their motivation. This goes for everyone's family, but what does any of that have to do with this thread?

It seems you get upset every time someone questions or criticises Amiga Inc, and you automatically assume they do so out of bias. Why is that?
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 04:20:25 PM
Reasoning should come from the higher levels, and it seems it doesn't... IMO (so most don't get offended)

Edited: Is it so really important, is it so hard to realize!? Most people talk about emulators as UAE was the same thing as AmigaForever, start to do a bunch of twists on words as if Amiga which is owner of it would do anything against Amiga4ever or draco, which they have licensed, so they could have their logic straight...
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 04:24:45 PM
So you say I'm defending Amiga Inc... whatever, the next thing you or other people say is that I'm BAF or troll or anything that suit their needs. As if it was a bad thing per se...(for itself)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: dslcc on August 23, 2003, 04:34:40 PM
I like MOS1.4 - it doesn't have a EULA! At least that I can find :-D  :-D  :-D
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 04:35:52 PM
> It seems you get upset every time someone questions or criticises
> Amiga Inc, and you automatically assume they do so out of bias.
> Why is that?

It must because I work at Amiga Inc and they pay my bills... must be it... ckecking cards, nope, I'm not!

I assume because it's what I though, I have entitled to my opinion, and I'm intitled to be wrong! To not be always factually correct! As everyone, it's not as if because you (you as people) are from MOS that you're entitled to be always right..

Bill I state what I state whenever I feel like for it, when I think it's  and not always as you pretend, like you I assume...

I state what I state when I feel like The One itself, so I can dodge all this bullets in 'bullet time' mode, it's better then drugs!  :-o
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: pixie on August 23, 2003, 04:49:53 PM
>I like MOS1.4 - it doesn't have a EULA! At least that I can find

One point to MorphOS, has it doesn't bring unnecessary discussions! ;-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: itix on August 23, 2003, 05:16:49 PM
Quote

"This License allows you to to install and use the Amiga Software on a single Amiga-labelled or Amiga-licensed computer at a time."

...

"This license allows you to install or operate the Amiga Software only on a computer system that had a version of Amiga OS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system."


This kind of license is void in Finland. I can buy OS 3.9 for whatever I want. Because: being written in english I can assume it doesnt concern users in Finland at all. OS 3.9 is still protected by finnish copyright laws of course (can't spread free copies or use single copy on multiple machines).

If this license comes in finnish then some parts of this license could be valid.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: kokigami on August 23, 2003, 07:28:05 PM
 @Wolfe
Quote
Are you a lawyer? In a court of law, an end user can be anyone currently in possession of the item in question. If genesi sells, packages or promotes OS X with the Pegasos they can be liable. End User is a generic term.



No, I am not a lawyer, but I am not an idiot either. Which is why I said
Quote
as they are not End Users. At least not in their functions as resellers.


Certainly, if they do the installation, then their tech clicks the radio button and thus agrees.  They would be foolish to do the install.

But, again, you are debating definitions, not principles. The principle is that this Eula item should not exist.  Not in Amiga OS or OSX, or Sony's Lesbian Sex Kittens from Mars.

A EULA is an agreement, and can be negotiated.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Kronos on August 23, 2003, 07:32:30 PM
Quote
One thing I forguet though Kronos, was AmigaOS3.9 implicitly need the AmigaOS3.1 roms to run, wether MacOSX don't*! ;-b


MacOSX needs a OF-like basis to run, which can be replaced by MOL.

OS3.9 does need something like Kick3.1 to run and the "boot.img" of MOS is
close enough to do that job. The only thing that doesn't work are the
ROM-updates (duh).

Oh, and I have 1 OS3.9 and 1 Amithlon, and atm I'm not even sure where that single
file I got installed on MOS came from (thats rexxsys.library).

Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: dslcc on August 23, 2003, 09:03:10 PM
Quote

pixie wrote:
>I like MOS1.4 - it doesn't have a EULA! At least that I can find

One point to MorphOS, has it doesn't bring unnecessary discussions! ;-)


Exactly...:) Only pleasant, happy discussions!  :-)
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Hammer on August 25, 2003, 05:14:26 AM
 
Quote

As is obvious from the licenses, no use of OS3.5 or OS3.9 on UAE, be it Amiga4ever or not, is allowed (Amiga4ever does not provide a "licensed computer", it is just a software package)
 

One has to define “computer” in that case. Virtual machine is a computer since it computes. A computer is just a fancy name for a (programmable) calculator. A calculator can be a software or hardware product.

“Emulators” can complicates/blur things, especially with newer processors e.g. IBM’s PowerPC 970, AMD’s Athlon XP/FX/64 and Intel’s Pentium Pro/II/III/VI/M.

The PowerPC 970’s hardware translator (crush/decode) stage can be equated as  a glorified hardware emulator/translator.  Similar processes also exist in AMD’s Athlon (K7**) and Intel’s Pentium Pro (P6***) series.

It’s not the fault of Amiga companies who can’t obtain/build a ‘post-RISC’ 68K**** CPU (‘Athlon’ed’ 68K as some people will say)…

**Also exist in AMD's K6 series.
***Includes Intel’s Pentium II/III/M and 'etc'.
****Not factoring the Coldfire Series due to some issues.
Title: Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
Post by: Ni72ous on August 25, 2003, 05:22:32 AM
Quote
breaking a EULA...and in the case of Mac OS X, there is no dispute the EULA exists and is clear...is PIRACY.

Get it through your head, it is not piracy, its just and only breaking the t&c's.