From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a7365ff3531de5f4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 09:48:41 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083656058 646702 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:224 Date: 2004-05-04T09:48:41+02:00 List-Id: On Mon, 3 May 2004 15:02:31 -0700, "Marius Amado Alves" wrote: >> :> ... I believe that "no warranty" >> :> licenses has to be void... >> : >> : I like the idea. Are there legal examples? >> >> You seem not to read software license agreements! :-) > >I read plenty. We're discussing Kasakov's proposal that the legal system >should make no warranty licenses, e.g. GPL, void, GPL will not be void, because GPLed products are not sold. Precisely I meant that IF you sell a software product, then either 1) you have to give something in return [in addition to the "right to use"], or 2) the product automatically falls under some sort of "default" license which grants rights to use, copy, modify, reverse engineer it to everybody. N.B. A software house is free to choose (2) and protect the product using activation keys etc. But then, anybody would have right to crack that protection. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de