Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Hollywood MAL AMIStore App Store A600 Memory

AuthorTopic: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.  (Read 7682 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mdwh2

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #60 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 ;)
 

Offline kokigami

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #61 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.

 

Offline Hammer

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #62 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.
AmigaForever 2016 with AmigaOS 4.1 FE, AMIDuOS\'s Android 5.01, MS Windows 10 Pro X64
Samsung ATIV Book 8 880Z5E laptop with touch screen.
CPU: Intel Core i7-3635QM, 2.4Ghz base, 3.4Ghz turbo.
RAM: 16 GB PC3-12800 (DDR3-1600)
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 8870M (OC) 2GB GDDR5 VRAM.
SSD: 512 GB Samsung 840
 

Offline mdwh2

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #63 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.
 

Offline bhoggett

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #64 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.
Bill Hoggett
 

Offline bhoggett

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #65 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.
Bill Hoggett
 

Offline Lando

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #66 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.
 

Offline iamaboringperson

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #67 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.
 

Offline Hammer

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #68 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.
AmigaForever 2016 with AmigaOS 4.1 FE, AMIDuOS\'s Android 5.01, MS Windows 10 Pro X64
Samsung ATIV Book 8 880Z5E laptop with touch screen.
CPU: Intel Core i7-3635QM, 2.4Ghz base, 3.4Ghz turbo.
RAM: 16 GB PC3-12800 (DDR3-1600)
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 8870M (OC) 2GB GDDR5 VRAM.
SSD: 512 GB Samsung 840
 

Offline Trev

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #69 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.
 

Offline tonyw

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #70 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

 

Offline Hammer

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #71 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.
AmigaForever 2016 with AmigaOS 4.1 FE, AMIDuOS\'s Android 5.01, MS Windows 10 Pro X64
Samsung ATIV Book 8 880Z5E laptop with touch screen.
CPU: Intel Core i7-3635QM, 2.4Ghz base, 3.4Ghz turbo.
RAM: 16 GB PC3-12800 (DDR3-1600)
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 8870M (OC) 2GB GDDR5 VRAM.
SSD: 512 GB Samsung 840
 

Offline iamaboringperson

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #72 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
 

Offline iamaboringperson

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #73 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!!
 

Offline mdwh2

Re: Adult conversation about this whole EULA issue.
« Reply #74 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.