Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 13:55 +0200, michael bode wrote:

> I've never heard of a case where the vendor
> would claim his own EULA irrelevant.

The Free Software license text is typically spelled out
in the file COPYING. 

>  Anyway it is much easier to prove
> that this piece of paper or hologram CD came from $VENDOR than that
> some .tgz file was downloaded before $DATE-$TIME. Especially if
> $VENDOR refuses to tell you $DATE-$TIME.

Yes, Ludovic has mentioned digital signatures. Some licenses
are printed on paper. If you buy a compiler, you should get
some. (AdaCore ships paper, too, or has, according
to the archives.)

Microsoft offers lengthy license texts, including on redistributables.
Some paragraphs are known to not apply in some contries, still the
license text suggests they do (to the layman, at least).
The holographic trick is, I believe, a way to make selling
forged copies of software disks more difficult. A lot like obfuscation
is useful in making software theft more difficult. And probably
the looks of holographic disks help marketing, too.
But I am not aware of holographic print being used as a signature.
Is it a new form of signing?

I wonder why industry is so reluctant in adopting digital signatures.
Are they afraid of cryptography in general? An unintelligible myth?
Less opportunity for travel because you cannot shake hands over signed
contracts when using eMail? Increased dependence on inferiors to sort
out the technical stuff?  ;-)


-- Georg